When Pope John Paul II formally apologized for the persecution of Galileo, it was an apology that took the Catholic Church more than 300 years to make.
If it also needs 300 years for the Catholic Church to apologize for the persecution of LGBT people, then there is no better time for LGBT activists to start working on this but today. And there is a great opportunity today to open minds and provide accurate information to refute the statements of Dr. Ligaya Anacta Acosta, regional director of Human Life International (HLI) Asia and Oceania, that appeared on two different articles.
In the article “Being portrayed as oppressed is best way to public sympathy, homosexual activists told,” Acosta asked the following questions:
“Are they really oppressed? We see many gays in the media… in fact, they lord it over [in the industry] so how can they say that they are being oppressed?”
I must say that this is perhaps the weakest, most misinformed reasoning that I have ever heard. The media is the last place Acosta should look at if she wants to have a glimpse of reality. This kind of reasoning is an insult to the couples who were almost declared persona non grata for committing their lives to each other. This reasoning is an insult to Hender Gercio who was denied the simple right to be addressed with the right pronoun in class. It is an insult to the gays and transgenders in Cebu who were attacked with pellet guns. It is a grave insult to the more than 141 LGBT Filipinos who were not only oppressed but killed because of hatred. Acosta must rethink her conclusions because they are based on a distorted version of reality. Otherwise, it would do her well to actually talk to the gay media personalities she is referring to and ask them what kind of oppression they had to go through (and are still going through) before reaching their current status.
Acosta has also claimed that the “homosexual revolution” is political as it is based on a “Marxist mold.” In the article “‘Homosexuals are born that way’ theory long debunked,” the article supports her claim with the following statement:
“Another significant incident in the history of the homosexual agenda was the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which turned out to be a political move rather than one based on findings of scientists.”
Acosta is then quoted as saying:
“Is homosexuality really normal? This all started in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association, under intense pressure from gay groups, removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. But we have to take note that [the organization] never did say that [homosexuality] was normal,”
This is another case of picking out facts that conveniently support one’s argument while leaving out the rest of the evidence, thereby suggesting an imbalanced perspective.
According to Eric Manalastas of the Psychological Association of the Philippines, “there are lots of studies that show being lesbian/gay is not a disorder.” Manalastas adds that this is “why the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) was revised — in response to better knowledge and growing understanding that the problem was not being gay/lesbian. Rather the problem was the stigma and discrimination faced by gay and lesbian people”
This also begs the question of how homosexuality was even included in that list to begin with. Acosta must present compelling scientific evidence to support the inclusion of homosexuality in that list. If she cannot, then it is irrelevant if the move to take homosexuality off the list is political in nature or not.
The truth is, the “Marxist mold” and the politics behind the LGBT movement are irrelevant to me when I can’t hold hands with my partner in public. To me, it is hardly political, it is personal. When children are bullied because of how they express their sexuality, it doesn’t matter to them what disorders are on the list of the American Psychiatric Association. To these children, it is hardly political, it is personal. When lesbians are raped to cure them of their “disease,” they don’t care much about how homosexual activists gain public sympathy. To these lesbians, it is hardly political, it is personal.
So stop referring to our activism as the “homosexual agenda” and start acknowledging our human rights. Don’t wait another 300 years before admitting you have been as wrong about us as you were about the universe 300 years ago. All it takes is a little love and compassion and you will see that our oppression is very real. Our oppression is very personal.
Read original article here | Read more from the same writer here
Again proving my point, in reality, your faith is not a good argument, especially when it comes to these serious issues. And you know it yourself, otherwise you will be insisting on how we are so messed up because we don't believe in it.
Also, I said you can't say any of those because those are the conditions that needs to happen so that you have a chance in defending your case that homosexuals do not deserve the rights for marriage or adoption. Are they evil? Are they a threat to society? No? So what makes you so much better than them? Oh that's right. By saying homosexuality is a " condition that has psychological repercussions". If somehow homosexuality became a mental disorder again, it would give you reason not to take them seriously right?
If that's not homophobic, I don't know what is.
To user dboncan: I wrote you a reply but I couldn't post it here because it was too long for the comments functionality. I turned the comments into a Facebook note. If you would indulge me, here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=1015043…
Thanks in advance.
I would reply to you there except that I have no idea how to do it.
You can reply here:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/12/12/13-com…
Thanks!
Ironically, the Roman Catholic church had once celebrated the love between men up until the twelfth century, and even in the Bible no where did Christ directly condemn homosexuality … only one of the Apostle had taken up the cudgel and began ranting about it and that man had written about it long after Christ was dead
"Ironically, the Roman Catholic church had once celebrated the love between men up until the twelfth century"
YOU WISH!
The problem with the Catholic Church especially the fundamentalist is that they can't accept gays as who the are, forgive me but most them think that being gay or lesbian as more of deviant and most especially the hardliners view them with outright disgust … short of labelling them as social outcast …
I find it hard to believe that until now people who make comments like this still manage to bungle up the Catholic church's teaching on the issue. Once and for all: It's not BEING homosexual it's what homosexuals DO… the gay lifestyle just as the adulterous lifestyle and the fornicators lifestyle.Will you make the distinction between what a person is and what a person does!
I thought it was very optimistic for someone to think in this way. I do not know a lot about what is going on with the LGBT movement in the Philippines. From what I have learned in my college class though is that religion is a very important part of life every day. Therefore, for a group that the Roman Catholic church does not even accept to try and find an apology from them seems almost impossible. I have to agree with Vera though that members of the LGBT movement are still oppressed. Although some of them may be beginning to talk about feelings of being an outcast, it is still not really accepted in society. Therefore I believe the call to arms is ambitious, but I do not know what the protesters will accomplish if the Church is stern in their practices.
"You didn't "debunk" the statements. You simply waved them off as the rhetoric of a "Pro-Gay" site. That's not debunking – that's being a close-minded bigot with neither the balls nor brains to actually address each argument intelligently. "
Sure i did. In case you forgot, you gave me two links re animal homosexual behavior which actually worked against you. I pointed out that the articles actually say that those behaviors indicate more of survival, confusion or dominance traits and are classified even by most biologists to be unusual behavior. To try to equate that with the homosexual attraction in humans is stretching it! In fact pondering those articles made me realize that those can be akin to the "homosexual" behavior prison inmates do when they sodomize the weaker ones in prison and make them their "bitches"! So perhaps you can make that equivocation between animal homosexuality and prison inmates behaving that way but not as we see it in general.
//Sure i did. In case you forgot, you gave me two links re animal homosexual behavior which actually worked against you. I pointed out that the articles actually say that those behaviors indicate more of survival, confusion or dominance traits and are classified even by most biologists to be unusual behavior.//
Stay on topic, laddie. We're talking about the SPLC.
//In fact pondering those articles made me realize that those can be akin to the "homosexual" behavior prison inmates do when they sodomize the weaker ones in prison and make them their "bitches"! //
Actually, male-to-male anal rape isn't conclusive to calling somebody gay. There are plenty of examples in history, for example, of defeated soldiers of an army being sodomized by their perfectly straight victors, not as an act of homosexuality, but as a show of male dominance.
"Stay on topic, laddie. We're talking about the SPLC."
How convenient when you're on the griller huh!
"Actually, male-to-male anal rape isn't conclusive to calling somebody gay. There are plenty of examples in history, for example, of defeated soldiers of an army being sodomized by their perfectly straight victors, not as an act of homosexuality, but as a show of male dominance."
That's what I said about why animals act that way thank you!
//That's what I said about why animals act that way thank you! //
And once again, you fall way short of the mark. Homosexuality isn't limited to just sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. That'd be like saying the only reason you fall in love with somebody is strictly for their fuckability.
//The APA changed the DSM classification because of fervent lobbying by militant gays. This was admitted even by then officers of the APA. The classification was changed with a vote of 52-48, a very narrow margin! //
The APA had more than 30 years to change their stance on homosexuality had they been proven wrong. So why didn't they? Because the "gay agenda" kept it that way?
"The truth is, the “Marxist mold” and the politics behind the LGBT movement are irrelevant to me when I can’t hold hands with my partner in public. To me, it is hardly political, it is personal. When children are bullied because of how they express their sexuality, it doesn’t matter to them what disorders are on the list of the American Psychiatric Association. To these children, it is hardly political, it is personal. When lesbians are raped to cure them of their “disease,” they don’t care much about how homosexual activists gain public sympathy. To these lesbians, it is hardly political, it is personal."
The problem is that you just don't want being able to be protected from violence or the right to have official government papers (passports, drivers license, professional license and the like) these are all rights of every citizen, gay or not.You should have the right of equal protection under law but that isn't what Acosta is talking about. It i the issue of wanting the rights accorded to what naturally belongs to heterosexual couples like marriage, adoption etc… and I have heard it many times that the militant LGBT's play up the "oppressed" issue to get sympathy for these other "rights" that they demand!
The right to be free from discrimination is a right up to a point where we really have to be discriminatory as to whether a person (homosexual or heterosexual) can rightfully fulfill the roles they would like to get into. We discriminate against people who have vision problems and are applying to be pilots or ex-cons who want to be a bank teller. It happens all the time.
When people see a man/woman dressed and/or acting like a woman/man it draws attention. why? Because it is unnatural behaviour. Now that doesn't mean that it is right to do violence to them but when ones actions draws attention to themselves, that is their lookout!
//It i the issue of wanting the rights accorded to what naturally belongs to heterosexual couples like marriage, adoption etc… and I have heard it many times that the militant LGBT's play up the "oppressed" issue to get sympathy for these other "rights" that they demand! //
How exactly does giving gays more rights take away your rights, dboncan? Afraid that the missus will leave you for that smokin' hot lady hair dresser next door when gay marriage is legalized?
//and I have heard it many times that the militant LGBT's play up the "oppressed" issue to get sympathy for these other "rights" that they demand! //
Militant. So when was the last time gays shot a straight with BB pellets for being straight, or lynched a heterosexual couple?
//We discriminate against people who have vision problems and are applying to be pilots or ex-cons who want to be a bank teller.//
You're referring to physical disabilities that directly affect a person's ability to perform their work.
So tell us – how does somebody's homosexuality affect their work performance any more differently than their heterosexuality? By your logic, we should be banning all straights from working, because most cases of sexual assault are committed by straight guys on women.
//When people see a man/woman dressed and/or acting like a woman/man it draws attention. //
Cross-dressing and effeminate behavior are not the same as homosexuality, my friend. You'd be surprised how many effeminate men there are who are straight. For instance, there's the matter of the Pope's shiny red slippers and dress 😉
http://images.inquirer.net/media/newsinfo/inquire…
Yeah right am afraid of the hairdresser next door. What a joke you are. Your the one who labels these people. Imagine stereotyping homosexuals as hairdressers shame on you! Show me one instance in all our exchanges where I ever questioned whether homosexuals can be productive members of society! That has never been the issue and this is exactly what i am saying by playing the oppressed group. You make it an issue when all I ever say is that certain rights, like marriage, cannot be accorded them. That is the issue. You and your cohorts would like to make everyone think that we want them totally out of society, that's awfully dishonest of you! For once, argue without changing the parameters of the argument.
By the way, the Pope's red slippers and attire is more traditional attire for the papacy as monarch. it has nothing to do with sexual preference but I guess you are ignorant of that fact so I will let it slide.
//You and your cohorts would like to make everyone think that we want them totally out of society, that's awfully dishonest of you! For once, argue without changing the parameters of the argument. //
Oh, whats wrong, pissed that I outed your deepest, darkest intents before you could?
//By the way, the Pope's red slippers and attire is more traditional attire for the papacy as monarch. it has nothing to do with sexual preference but I guess you are ignorant of that fact so I will let it slide. //
It's still a dress and red slippers, no matter how you try to spin it.
Ad hominen again Ho Hum…. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz
//Imagine stereotyping homosexuals as hairdressers shame on you! //
Ironic, coming from the genius who insists gay parents are not right, despite the mounting amount of evidence saying there's nothing wrong with it.
//Show me one instance in all our exchanges where I ever questioned whether homosexuals can be productive members of society! //
Gladly:
//Why do i oppose it? Because it is against the natural moral law and is potentially destructive to society. It is a sterile relationship that cannot build society. //
You were saying?
Missed the boat again Mr Ajax. I suppose I was expecting too much for you to get what building society means and not literally building, as in making stuff or contributing to productivity. Sheeesh. Tell me if we had a million solely homosexual couples living in a particular country, would they still have a society existing in a hundred years? they would all be dead and anything that they actually built would be corroding. In other words, a sterile relationship cannot make society propagate. Did you get it or do I have to repeat it again? Do you get the difference between my meaning and what you wanted me to mean?
//Tell me if we had a million solely homosexual couples living in a particular country, would they still have a society existing in a hundred years?//
There are always the options of adopting, or having IVFs.
I seem to recall something about lesbian lizards who reproduced through parthenogenesis.
Ah, it's the New Mexico whiptail. Nature is amazing.
oh homosexual men can now carry babies through IVF? So what do you do with lesbians, get the gay mans sperm and implant it in them? Who will they adopt if none of them have the capacity to have children? I can't believe the ridiculous the extent to which people are willing to go to in order not admit that they are wrong. In a society that you envision everything is permissible that is why your argument can get so skewed.
I know a lot of people who cross dress or act "effeminate" but are cisgendered.
– Scottish kilt wearers (sporting a short skirt worn with or without underwear)
– hair and glam metal bands (demonic rock bands, all male, wearing makeup and sporting teased long hair, wearing skin tight pants, singing about stereotypical male pursuits like drinking and sex)
– Visual Kei bands (as if cosplay wasn't hard enough)
– Korean and Japanese boybands (pretty pretty boys)
– Andrei Pejic
I, for one, wear my boyfriend's death metal shirts and Doc Martens from time to time. I even ended up wearing his pants when I was pregnant.
No wonder I get those stares. I am behaving unnaturally!
😀
"cisgendered" seriously there is a term? the terms cis and trans used to be a chemical prefix and the word gender used to refer to parts of speech. I am so amused, we get a chemical prefix and combine it with a reference to a part of speech and we have a sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.WOW! Since when do girls/women who wear pants and shirts unnatural? Your analogy is false. Honestly, if you saw a non-Scott wearing a Kilt-tie in the middle of Glorietta would you think it was unusual? I would think on of two things, either he was headed to a costume party somewhere or he is paid to promote something. I can't believe the extent to which people will make absurd and false arguments
i know there's been another post about you, but let me define cisgendered for the sake of other people (it's not another "sex" if that's what you think).
basically a cisgendered person has a gender identity that agrees with their socially recognized sex (often based on genetic or physical characteristics). for example, i am physically female, society generally sees me as female, and i think i am female.
the opposite would be a transgender person, who might be physically male, but identifies as a female. some of these transpeople undergo surgery or other transformations to make their physical attributes conform to the societal norm of male or female.
my previous reply was meant to explain that assuming a person's gender identity or sexual orientation MERELY on the basis of dress is erroneous.
– MERELY: because with other factors (like actually asking the person about it, but that would be uncomfy or too personal for some, and who really cares, right?) you can GENERALLY deduce gender identity and sexual orientation of the person.
– erroneous: because, with the examples I gave above, there are people who identify as male, are male, but adopt stereotypically female appearances for various reasons; and of course, there are females who adopt male dress but do not feel any less "feminine" because of this.
//"Since when do girls/women who wear pants and shirts unnatural? Your analogy is false."
That's it, actually. Why is it modern Western-influenced society conditioned to view females wearing historically male dress like pants/trousers as "natural"? Other societies, cultures, or religions think that this type of clothing is "unnatural".
What makes us decide, when it comes to clothing, what is natural and unnatural?
And, by a far shot, what makes us decide, when it comes to human sexuality and gender identity, what is natural and unnatural?
When most of our common stereotypes and mores change from society to society, culture to culture, era to era, and most of our "permanent" concepts end up as FLUID social constructs?
Your version of natural moral law just seems like another social construct that has a weak basis. If, considering your version of natural moral law is correct, can I not argue that "unacceptable" behaviors such as polygamy or killing are moral? Polygamy is very widespread in nature, and serves to propagate the species. Killing is merely a means of defense or gaining advantage against an opponent.
I know what cis and trans mean thank you.”What makes us decide, when it comes to clothing, what is natural and unnatural? “there is an extent to which attires cross sexual boundaries after that its just plain rationalizing already. Even the style of pants for men and women are different by virtue of the physique so to wear what is a woman's pants in a physique of a man is unnatural just as a man wearing a woman's dress is because a man's natural attire is for men. How difficult can that be?
"When Pope John Paul II formally apologized for the persecution of Galileo, it was an apology that took the Catholic Church more than 300 years to make"
Lets get one thing clear, the apology of Bl. pope John Paul II was not an apology for speaking out for the natural moral law. it was an apology for those who behaved in an unChristian manner while thinking they were acting in behalf of Christ. It was not apology for opposing abortion, contraception, women's ordination, divorce and the homosexual lifestyle. While indeed the violence toward people with homosexual orientations must stop, which the Church supports by the way, this does not mean that the Church should encourage homosexual lifestyle and accept it as right.
The APA changed the DSM classification because of fervent lobbying by militant gays. This was admitted even by then officers of the APA. The classification was changed with a vote of 52-48, a very narrow margin!
Sexual preference is a continuum. Homosexuals on one end and heterosexuals on the other. Bisexuals are at the middle. But all are normal. One can say that heterosexuals have a small amount of “homosexual-ness” in them. Homosexuals can contribute to society – which is why it was omitted as a mental disorder. At least science is siding with what is true.
However, the stigma and discrimination will take years – maybe generations to eradicate. As long as their are bible-bearing bigots, the uphill battle for equality won’t get easier.
What is important is that we are all human beings and we all contribute to ensure we reach the potential of what our species is capable of. Isn’t that supposed to be what living is all about?
"But all are normal. One can say that heterosexuals have a small amount of "homosexual-ness" in them. Homosexuals can contribute to society – which is why it was omitted as a mental disorder."
No one ever questioned the productivity of homosexuals in society. Why do you keep insisting on making this an issue. We are not talking about productiveness or being nice. We are talking here about the ridiculous demands of homosexuals etc…, to be given the "right" to marry. WE are not even talking about the other rights that everyone, gay or not, are entitled to!
Nope, the homosexual lobby put pressure on the organization to get the DSm classification out. Wikipedia has it. Sexual preference is not a continuum.
"However, the stigma and discrimination will take years – maybe generations to eradicate. As long as their are bible-bearing bigots, the uphill battle for equality won't get easier."
Like what, 2000 years? Bible bearing what? When did I ever use the bible as argument? You're the bigot who labels anyone who argues for the natural law as "bible-bearing bigots."
"What is important is that we are all human beings and we all contribute to ensure we reach the potential of what our species is capable of. Isn't that supposed to be what living is all about?"
Living is about pursuing what is true about ones nature.
Will your rights be threatened if their rights are granted?
I don't oppose something just because it threatens my rights.I oppose this because its repercussions introduce a society where morality becomes relative to a persons preference and taste! To grant marital rights to homosexuals is like trying to pretend that the union between same sexes is natural, it is not!
I oppose abortion because murder is evil. I oppose certain moves in granting homosexuals sweeping "rights" which should be rightly reserved for heterosexuals like marriage or adoption. I support legislation that will prevent and penalize bullying or violence done whether it be to homosexuals, weaklings, handicapped or similar. Last time I checked two homosexuals living together or even doing sodomy isn't a crime.
Basically, you oppose anything when its repercussions introduce a society where morality is NOT relative to YOUR preference and taste.
Gays are yuck. <-That's how mature your argument is.
And your argument above is mature? LOL Coming from a chronic fabricator of lies, it does not mean a thing! I am on to your BS Mr Bercero.
Thanks for calmly and rationally responding to me, like a mature adult. 😉
Your welcome, anytime!
Perhaps my colleague was too polite to say what he meant.
Go fuck yourself, you bigoted, limp-dicked, pus-nutted, pea-brained son of a whore.
I think Bercero was talking about you! At any rate i see you haven't taken my advice and used Ajax for the toilet between your cheeks. Your a disgrace to your tribe. Freethinkers??? hahahaha.
//Your a disgrace to your tribe.//
It's "you're" with an apostrophe. dboncan, you are at least 40 years old. Learn to use some proper motherfucking grammar.
you're… there!
//To grant marital rights to homosexuals is like trying to pretend that the union between same sexes is natural, it is not! //
I've got news for you, bub: Monogamy isn't natural either 😉 http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/…
Notice that it was an opinion column. Perhaps for animals like you it isn't for humans it is. Notice how adultery, bigamy and polygamy are frowned upon or even criminalized. Even most Muslims are monogamists, in fact it is the exception than the rule. BUB!
//Notice how adultery, bigamy and polygamy are frowned upon or even criminalized. Even most Muslims are monogamists, in fact it is the exception than the rule. BUB! //
Apples and oranges argument, bub. Explain how adultery is in any way similar to a healthy relationship between two gay men.
I was referring to your statement on monogamy not being natural. You brought that up didn't you? Look above Bub.
//I oppose certain moves in granting homosexuals sweeping "rights" which should be rightly reserved for heterosexuals like marriage or adoption.//
You're opposed to them, and yet you fail to come up with any valid reason to. You've already admitted that this isn't about gays not being productive members of society. So what is it, really, about gay marriage that has you so offended?
We've already cited evidence that gays that adopt children are just as capable of caring for their kids proper as any straight couple. And as the occassions of legalizing gay marriage in the US have indicated, such a legal move doesn't result in the collapse of civilization.
You, on the other hand, haven't really shown us anything except empty rhetoric about homosexuality being "unnatural," and conspiracy theories.
Let's see, what have you proved except changing the goal posts of the discussion all the time or attribute something that i never said. For example, you claimed that I hate gays or want to deprive them of rights, a blatant fabrication. You said it is natural by showing it occurs in the animal kingdom, I proved it isn't. Now you are down to asking me why it is bothersome to me personally? Why do i oppose it? Because it is against the natural moral law and is potentially destructive to society. It is a sterile relationship that cannot build society. It falsely imparts to children that there is such a thing as a third sex when there isn't. It is a pretentious union with pretentious results. lets get one thing clear, I never said they were bad people or that they should not be protected from violence or that they should not hold hands in public if they wanted to.
//You said it is natural by showing it occurs in the animal kingdom, I proved it isn't.//
If it isn't natural, then why does it still occur in animals?
//Because it is against the natural moral law and is potentially destructive to society.//
dboncan, we've been through this before: How exactly does being gay directly destroy society?
//It is a sterile relationship that cannot build society.//
So you mean to limit a person's value to their ability have kids. Is that it?
History is filled with personalities who decided not to sire children dboncan, one of whom includes your very own Jesus Christ.
//It falsely imparts to children that there is such a thing as a third sex when there isn't. //
And yet gays live among us, dboncan. Living, and contributing to society through the jobs they enter.
//lets get one thing clear, I never said they were bad people or that they should not be protected from violence or that they should not hold hands in public if they wanted to. //
No, you simply claim that what they do is wrong, and is unnatural. You claim no hatred for them, and yet every word that comes out of that asscrack you call a mouth has resorted to nothing but bullshit and derogatory remarks about what gays are.
Condescension is a form of hatred, but you seem too thick-headed to see that.
Derogatory? Your the one with a public toilet between your cheeks. You're the one who denigrates them by using words like "Queer." Again as usual, you attribute stuff which I do not even hold. It's really pointless having something intelligible with you. you talk about monogamy being unnatural and yet society penalizes polygamy? Go figure. I think your brain is suffering from sepsis flowing from your mouth. Ajax pare ajax!
//You're the one who denigrates them by using words like "Queer."//
Slow down on the Vulcan mind meld, mi amigo. You said that in a prior statement:
//You mean queers, right? (couldn't help being derogatory)//
you said "quirks" i merely pointed out your mistake and this " (couldn't help being derogatory)" referred to you not me.
//It's really pointless having something intelligible with you. you talk about monogamy being unnatural and yet society penalizes polygamy?//
Natural isn't the same as legal 😉 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_poly…
perhaps you should look up the historical basis of such laws then maybe you can get back and argue in an informed manner.
//It is a sterile relationship that cannot build society.//
And yet we have people like Neil Patrick Harris and Ian McKellen, who have contributed greatly to film and entertainment. We also have:
Alexander the great (Monarch)
Leonardo da Vinci (Architect, painter, inventer…go on)
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky(composer)
Pietro Aretina (playwright)
Walt Whitman (writer)
Samuel Butler (writer)
Oscar Wilde (novelist)
Michelangelo (architect, sculptor)
George Rose (politician)
James Ivory (mathematician, scientist)
As for your argument that gays cannot raise children properly, I have already cited before that studies show they're not that different from straight couples.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-child…
This is the evidence, dboncan, the same that you've been avodiing for our past few exchanges, and instead bawl that "GAYS AREN'T NATURAL!"
Fantastic list but again NON-SEQUITUR
Non-Sequitur because it disproves your argument that gays can't help build society?
Explain why it's non sequitur then.
it does not follow that just because someone is productive, they can also contribute to the growth of society in the sense of which i was referring to, i.e. propagate and raise children. You are talking about the ability to contribute to society by means of work, I was not talking about that.
Oh and here are a couple of articles which challenge the notion that children from homosexual parents are the same as those by heterosexual couples. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/27/local/me-…
and http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/science_…
//Oh and here are a couple of articles which challenge the notion that children from homosexual parents are the same as those by heterosexual couples. //
From your own source: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/27/local/me-…
//The studies indicate sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.
"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," Stacey and Biblarz wrote.
Indeed, Stacey said she thought there were some advantages to lesbian parenting, as both partners tended to be highly involved in the children's lives and were in greater harmony than heterosexual couples in terms of parenting approaches.
Stacey said reasons for some of the differences are a mystery. But some of the findings are logical.
Whether one believes homosexuality is a function of biology or culture, it makes sense, she said, that the child of a lesbian–probably raised in a fairly tolerant neighborhood–would be more open to same-sex experiences than the child of a heterosexual.//
The only thing that is "challenged" here is your mental capacity and reading comprehension 😉
Read the data which is different from their conclusions. I posted this precisely to show how biased the conclusions were in spite of the fact that they found differences in the way kids are raised which she attributed to a "mystery" seriously a "mystery", and you buy that? Of course they would make them positive they are after all both gay activists but the question is what does the data actually say… you yourself pointed it out. That is why children should not be raised in a same sex environment because of the skewed orientation which, as I have stated in the past is a sure formula for a sterile society. It's staring you in the face and you can't even see it. But certainly in your relativistic frame of mind where everything goes, you can't see it.
//You said it is natural by showing it occurs in the animal kingdom, I proved it isn't. //
Tell that to penguins, dolphins, Bisons, and Brown Bears, to name a few 😉 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_disp…
maybe you speak penguin, bison, dolphin etc… I don't. at any rate, did you read the data of those two links you sent me before? it debunks your theory that the homosexual behaviour we see in humans is the same we see in the animal kingdom… it's not. even biologists maintain that it is unusual and uncommon behavior. read your links next time.
Sodomy should be a crime? Even among heteros? What if a strap-on dildo was used? Or it was self-inflicted?
If we criminalized two homosexuals living together, entire church seminaries would be boarded up.
What your point? This is what i said, they should not and re not criminalized. Regarding seminaries being boarded up, finally someone recognizes the fact homosexuals do not belong to the seminaries.
And what is so evil in homosexual marriage that you are against it?
For the record, what you are saying is relative to your Catholic-based-morality…and guess what? Reality begs to differ. Saying that marriage and adoption should apply only to heterosexuals is very closed-minded and really, really childish.
btw, the only reason I can think of why you don't like them gays being granted of their rights is because the Bible tells you so. And that is not a very good argument in court. Sorry bro, suck it up.
I never said it was evil I said it was against natural moral law. I said it natural moral law is not based on Catholic teaching but on human nature and the nature of what it means to be male and female. The nature of marriage is the same thing it is between man and a woman precisely because the nature of marriage is that it is productive as well as unitive. What is childish is the appeal to feelings as a basis of what is a right and wrong it is like a brat who demands to be heard not because he has reason to be heard but because he will whine if he isn't. I never once brought up the bible or Catholic teaching you keep on bringing it up I wonder why, maybe because you know it's true.
Sorry, but what is the basis of this natural moral law you speak of? Your preference? Or are you simply saying that because gay people don't procreate, they don't have the right to love, be married, and be protected by law?
Watch this for some enlightenment: http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-bab…
There's no reason for society to stay heteronormative, as this would only alienate the LGBT community.
Natural moral law comes from that which governs our human nature. it is not a matter of taste nor preference, it is not relative therefor it is objective and absolute. If it is not a matter of ones preference. I never said that homosexuals should not be protected by law or that they cannot fall in love where the heck did you get that? I said I do not believe in giving them the right to marry because by the nature of what marriage is, it is between a man and a woman… that is it! Why do you people keep on insisting that I want to oppress homosexuals. That is sheer dishonesty as i have never ever said that!
It's exactly your being opposed to gay marriage that gives us that idea. Morality is relative, buddy. For some people, homosexuality is what feels natural/right/good. The law should be able to cater to everyone, in spite of their moral compasses.
For you to say that the law should only grant privilege to people operating under this natural moral principle IS oppression, and discrimination.
How is that? Lets me get this clear. I say i am opposed to homosexual marriage and that means I believe they should be bullied and discriminated against in everything else? I believe they have every right to engage in sodomy or whatever sexual acts or whatever they want to in private. But that in no way means that i agree that what they do is right. Morality is not a matter of taste or feel or preference. If this were so, then why do we not condone adultery or infidelity or pedophilia? Because there is an objective set of moral norms we appeal to. A moral act is always either morally good or bad otherwise everything is permissible for as long as I feel I can justify it. Supposing a spouse is unfaithful. Is it justified because he or she feels that she is falling out of love? No.
When you say that the law must cater to everyone in spite of their moral compass, I agree with that fully that is why I don;t believe that marriage be given to them because the law says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Sexual orientation and diversity DO NO HARM unlike those things you mentioned. Don't be narrow. What you don't get is that the current law is lacking and discriminatory as there are legal rights and benefits given to people under a heterosexual union, but not for LGBT unions! Sure, you tolerate "sodomizers", but you still think they're not worthy of legal rights. That's oppression! Look it up.
Where the heck do you pick up me saying that they are not worthy of legal rights? I said legal recognition of marriage that is it but as persons they should be accorded the rights accorded to every citizen of this country, employment, voting, etc… marriage is a different thing it is not an inalienable right.
You've been saying that the whole time… legal rights and benefits of marriage… that's what I meant by UNIONS. Oh my gosh, your unnecessary diligence and defensiveness tire me. I'll leave you to your homophobia. Bye!!!
And the only reason you're not bringing up the Catholic teachings here is because it will burn down like wildfire. So…you bring up laws of nature, a pathetic attempt to bring some kind of argument. Now, even though you are such a devout Catholic, why not use the Bible here as an argument against the LGBT? I mean it is the source of everything moral right? And who cares about these natural moral laws? It's right because the Bible says so. There's no moral law in nature, it only comes from the Bible, right?
Try posting an argument here about homosexuality not right just because the Bible says so, and see what happens. In reality, your faith isn't just good enough
<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-236376618"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(236376618)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffilipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com%2F2011%2F12%2F07%2Fwhy-lgbt-people-must-get-personal-with-the-catholic-church%2F%23IDComment236368701#IDComment236376618&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Why%20LGBT%20People%20Must%20Get%20Personal%20with%20the%20Catholic%20Church%20%7C%20Filipino%20Freethinkers" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(236376618)">Close Message What is pathetic is that you are trying to shoehorn my faith into the discussion which I have never brought up. The reason I don't talk about my faith is because many of you are atheists so that is kind of pointless. I bring up the issue of natural law because I presume you are part of nature and obey the laws of nature and maybe, just maybe have enough sense to understand that. The natural moral law is what makes up those laws which allow you to live in this country free from any persecution. Life, liberty and happiness are all based on the natural moral law. if they are not and moral laws are merely man made then who has any right to tell me what I can and cannot do? You are actually living in a culture created by the very thing that you question. The natural moral law comes from human nature, it is the way our nature is governed.
And thus proving my point, your faith isn't just good enough to be considered as an argument….right?
You can bark around all you want about natural moral laws but know this, homosexuality is within the boundaries of human nature, which makes it a natural moral law. You can't say that homosexuality is isolated to humans only, because it isn't. You can't say that homosexuality is an immediate threat to society. You can't even say homosexuals are evil.
So, what now? You will justify homosexuality by equating it with mental disorders. Go with the line, "Don't worry honey, they are out of their minds and need medical attention" and "Homosexuals can't adopt nor even marry because they are whackos, you can't expect them to raise a child"? Stop your homophobic rants, grow up will you?
//In the article “‘Homosexuals are born that way’ theory long debunked,” the article supports her claim with the following statement://
One problem with Ligaya's argument: There are numerous (and recent studies) that indicate that homosexuality is natural, and is as much a product of genetics as it is the person's environment:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc…
//Otherwise, it would do her well to actually talk to the gay media personalities she is referring to and ask them what kind of oppression they had to go through (and are still going through) before reaching their current status.//
If I may make a suggestion, Acosta may want to start with MMK's story of Vice Ganda. He went through hell when he was younger because of his identity as a homosexual.
//“Is homosexuality really normal? This all started in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association, under intense pressure from gay groups, removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. But we have to take note that [the organization] never did say that [homosexuality] was normal,”//
Technically speaking, EVERYBODY suffers from one form of mental disorder or another. They're what make people so wonderfully unique. The question Acosta should be asking is whether these quirks cause the person to be a danger to society.
Assuming that homosexuality isn't normal, so what? Neither is homophobia, and between the two, the latter has done far more damage than the former. Homosexuality gave us Ian McKellen and Neil Patrick Harris. Homophobia gave us the Westboro Baptist Church 🙁
"One problem with Ligaya's argument: There are numerous (and recent studies) that indicate that homosexuality is natural, and is as much a product of genetics as it is the person's environment: "
What guts man! After I debunked this argument of your based on the links you yourself provided here you go again.
"Technically speaking, EVERYBODY suffers from one form of mental disorder or another."
So you do admit that homosexuality is a disorder??
"They're what make people so wonderfully unique. "
There are better ways of being unique like using ones talents!
"The question Acosta should be asking is whether these quirks cause the person to be a danger to society. "
You mean queers, right? (couldn't help being derogatory)
That isn't even an issue that you guys/gays? keep bringing up. Saying it is morally wrong is not necessarily saying these persons are a danger to society the way a drunk driver is!
"Assuming that homosexuality isn't normal, so what? Neither is homophobia, and between the two, the latter has done far more damage than the former. Homosexuality gave us Ian McKellen and Neil Patrick Harris. Homophobia gave us the Westboro Baptist Church"
You assume that to say that homosexual acts is homophobia is erroneous labeling of people. A phobia is not merely being afraid of something, it is a condition wherein the fear interferes with functioning. As far as I can tell people, like Acosta, who speak out against the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle function quite well. Seriously Dougie Howser and Dumbledor LOL. Besides to argue that we have prestigious homosexuals is a non-sequitur for condoning the lifestyle
//What guts man! After I debunked this argument of your based on the links you yourself provided here you go again. //
You didn't "debunk" the statements. You simply waved them off as the rhetoric of a "Pro-Gay" site. That's not debunking – that's being a close-minded bigot with neither the balls nor brains to actually address each argument intelligently.
//So you do admit that homosexuality is a disorder??//
That's for psycholgists to decide, and last I checked, APA removed gayness from their list of mental disorders in 1975 😉
Now I don't need a degree to tell you that's a disorder. Have you visited your shrink lately?
//That isn't even an issue that you guys/gays? keep bringing up. Saying it is morally wrong is not necessarily saying these persons are a danger to society the way a drunk driver is!//
We've all seen your idea of what is "morally right." It involves ignoring all evidence that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and that the discrimination your side commits against them is the real monster.
Who the fuck are you to claim what is right and wrong, you bigoted asswipe?
Furthermore, the dangers of drunken driving can be easily quantified if you look at the accident reports of agencies like the LTFRB and the MMDA.
Do youhave any quantifiable proof of the "dangers" of giving the LGBT community the same rights as everybody else?
//As far as I can tell people, like Acosta, who speak out against the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle function quite well. //
dboncan, the HLI group that Acosta works for has already been repeatedly caught lying about its data. Its less a health agency, and more a conservative think tank that pretends to be intellectual.
Dr. Acosta is no different – she subscribes to their rhetoric quite openly, despite the fact that her organization has zero credibility.
//As far as I can tell people, like Acosta, who speak out against the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle function quite well. //
Really now? Then why does she insist on making intellectually dishonest arguments, such as saying that gays aren't being discriminated against because there are gays in the entertainment industry?
Those are the tactics of a bigot, dboncan – I've seen enough of it to be certain, and to realize that you, much like Ligaya, are ass-pulling your statements.
//Seriously Dougie Howser and Dumbledor LOL. //
They're also Dr. Horrible and Magneto, bitch 😉
//Besides to argue that we have prestigious homosexuals is a non-sequitur for condoning the lifestyle//
It's not the lifestyle that's being argued over. It is the demand for equal and just treatment for gays who are being discriminated against.
"It's not the lifestyle that's being argued over. It is the demand for equal and just treatment for gays who are being discriminated against."
Mr Ajax, what rights of gays are being trampled? Let's see you are pissed because violence is done to them, well so am I. But the law protects everyone and if there is violence, are you telling me that the police won't act on it just because the victim is homosexual? Are you telling me that you want legislation that will penalize bullying of homosexuals… but what not weaklings, handicapped, etc… the bullying of homosexuals is because of the perception that they are weak.
A comment above says he is pissed because he can't hold hands in public without being looked at strangely, should we penalize staring behavior as well? That's what Acosta means by trying to create a scenario of oppression. Heck if people look when you want to kiss your boyfriend in public tell them to shove it and if someone does violence to you for doing that behavior file a case with the police. Heck take a number and fall in line like every other victim of violence.
Ian McKellen was Gandalf and Magneto, not Dumbledore!
I point this out as evidence of your fear of homosexuals interfering with the natural functioning of your logic and Google skills. 😀
Seriously. I draw hope from your statement that you don't equate the danger level of homosexuality with drunk driving, it's just "morally wrong" for you. Unfortunately, your succeeding statements reek of a negative mindset against gays, lesbians and other non-sexually normative folk.
I find that denying a person basic human experiences and legal freedoms such as raising children and getting married equates to homophobia and discrimination.
To say that same-sex couples are not given the legal recognition, protection and benefits as a legally-married couple just because of an unfair concept of marriage as between heterosexuals is discrimination. I don't think we even have to question commitment or motive behind marriage; plenty of heteros get married for less honorable reasons, and may even be characterized as mentally and socially unfit for marriage. But the law allows them to marry anyway, with minor exclusions.
To say that same-sex couples are incapable of raising well-adjusted, functioning children because of :
– an arbitrary ideal about what constitutes a "family"
– outdated and erroneous assumptions about the mental and social fitness of the parents
– unfounded fears about "polluting" children's minds
is discrimination.
To deny same-sex couples the status of being legally recognized as married because of :
– a narrow view of marriage as solely for procreation, or between "man" and "woman"
– your personal "ick" factor unsupported by logic
is discrimination.
To deny LGBT people are being discriminated against, and need stricter legal protections like other minorities is a travesty. In a similar manner, laws protecting women and children were enacted not because they are "weak" in terms of being physically unable to defend themselves, or are emotionally "softer". Our society, however, with male privilege and other types of bias deeply rooted in our culture and religion, conspires to make offenders think that LGBTs, women, children, non-Catholics, the "disabled", the poor, the ethnic minorities, are fair game.
We (since I am female and weird) are oppressed only in terms of physical violence, but in lesser education and job opportunities, political sidelining, and in casual yet telling slights borne out of plain ignorance.
The LGBT rights bill is not just a bill, it is a statement of support for LGBT's plight; it tells them that government and society does not view them as freaks to be excluded, or even as minorities to be recognized. They are Filipinos. They are human.
How can marriage be an absolute basic human right? Can minors marry? why not if it is an absolute right? can mentally handicapped people marry? can humans opt to marry their pets? See you erroneously make the conclusion that just because some have the right to do it, that everyone must have equal right to it too. Some "rights" are not absolute some are.
Are you telling me that allowing same-sex marriage will decrease the number of homosexuals being bullied or maltreated? That's rather presumptuous of you. That is hoping that you can legislate decency in human behavior!
Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office, given a drivers license, cedula, taxed higher, refused enrollment in school or refuses police protection solely by their orientation?
Why is the concept of marriage as being for male and female an unfair concept? Do you know the reasons behind it?