Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:This is true, especially among the charismatic churches.
Leviticus 20:10-21 and Deuteronomy 22:13-30 provide explanations of sexual immorality. The following sexual behavior is forbidden by the Bible:
I asked another few Christian friends about these passages. This is what one of them said: "u're reading old testament, that's when? before Jesus come right?"
Adultery – sexual relations with someone married to another person
Homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) relations with the same sex
Incest – sexual relations between blood relatives who are forbidden to marry, such as parent and child or brother and sister
Pedophilia – sexual relations with children (1 Cor. 6:9)
Preventing conception – (masturbation), e.g., Onan (Gen. 38:9)
Prostitution – taking money for sexual favors (Lev. 19:29); This includes fathers who prostituted their daughters for money. The Canaanites (Joshua 2:1) and the Philistines had prostitutes (Judges 16:1)
Rape – taking a woman by force (Deut. 22:2
Sexual relations during menstruation – (Lev. 15:24; 18:19)
Sodomy – sexual acts with animals (Ex. 22:18; Deut 27:21; Lev. 18:23; 20:15)
Transvestism – erotic exchange of clothing between men and women (Deut. 22:5).
And furthermore, she directed me to some discussions where these statements were made:The other 29 verses of the chapter are largely ignored, yet two seem curiously related. Verses 11 and 12 say, "Don't wear clothing woven from two kinds of thread: for instance, wool and linen together. You must sew tassels on the four corners of your cloaks." One might ask why there isn't a great disturbance about the blended fabrics commonly worn today by both men and women. And how would the world react to tassels. How indeed!
Let's also note what else Deut. 22 tells us.
So I have to ask u, do u faithfully follow everything that is said above? Do u avoid wearing clothing of mixed fibres? Does your clothing have fringes on it? Do u have tassels sewn on the four corners of your cloak? Should we put adulterers to death? Have you put a railing on your roof? If u answer no to any one of these, how can u then say that u're faithful to the bible as well? Or more to the point, all of these passages from the old testaments, can u really be sure that is what God wouldn't be too pleased with, or just something humans made up?
It tells you what to do when you find someone else's cattle (verses 1-4).
It tells you what to do if you find a bird's nest on the ground (verses 6-7).
It tells you that you have to put a railing around your roof to make sure nobody falls off of it (verse
.
It tells you not to plant more than one kind of seed in the same vinyard (verse 9),
not to hitch your plow to an ass and an ox at the same time (verse 10),
NOT TO WEAR CLOTHING OF MIXED FIBERS (verse 11 -- look, more potential alt.clothing.lingerie content!! -- "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, AS OF woollen and linen together" (King James version, emphasis mine), and
that your clothing has to have fringes on it (oh, how sixties -- verse 12).
It tells you what to do if a man claims that his wife was not a virgin when they married, and what to do if he's right and what to do if he's wrong (verses 13-21).
It tells you that adulterers must be put to death (verse 22).
It tells you that a woman betrothed to someone who has sex with someone other than her betrothed, in a city, and doesn't cry out, shall be put to death (verses 23-24).
It tells you that if a woman is raped in a field where there's nobody to hear her cry out, you kill the rapist but not the victim (verse 25-27).
It tells you that if a man lies with a woman who is not already betrothed, they have to get married (verses 28-29).
Finally, it says you mustn't sleep with your father's wife (verse 30).
Here's another paragraph from a discussion of the bible specifically about the Deutronomy:Now that we've put it in context (though for homework you should go read a few other chapters of Deuteronomy as well), here's some insight from a Christian perspective:
so are u clean shaven as well? thats against the bible then it seems. Also please make sure u do not turn on any electrical devices on the sabbath if u want to be faithful to the bible instead of being hypocrite and only following or believing in some of the things written inside.
Most (not all) of the other Christians I've talked to about the Mosaic laws have agreed that Christ "fulfilled" the law and that Christ's law supplants Mosaic law -- otherwise Christians would have to keep kosher, cover our heads at all times, not perform any "creative acts" on the sabbath (note that this is interpreted by modern Jews to include not turning on any electrical devices, and that the sabbath runs from sundown to sundown (actually from sundown to an hour after sundown, I think) Friday night/Saturday)).
How many of the folks who're quoting Deut. 22:5 at you obey all of that? Also, most of the ones who've quoted that verse at me have been clean-shaven, and I believe there's a biblical injunction against that too!
Anyone out there wear poly/cotton or wool/linen or wool/cotton blends? -
did the story show the student to be judgemental?Originally posted by HENG@:maybe he dun give a damn, but does that give Christians the right to be judgemental as well? I think F Bunta is right. Christian would do better to show how their religion has made them a better person, not to try to promote their religion by putting others down.
and if I get it right .. it is the professor who put the student down first. similarly, I see many non believers trying to put xtians down. you see the no. of threads started in CC bashing christianity?
The non believers in EH are ok .. in fact they are a cool bunch of pple -
omg do u still not get it, the student and the professor are both creations of an xtian. the xtian who wrote it set out deliberately to MAKE the professor, who is a fictional creation of the xtian author, look bad. I don't care what happens in the story, i don't care if the student in it is judgemental or not because the whole bloody story is FAKE, non of that Shit actually happened. WHAT concerns me is that the person who started this thread IS XTIAN, trying to make atheists look bad. so i wonder wots the point of xtians trying to put other beliefs down then? u have to admit it was an xtian who started this thread to make atheists look bad with a FICTIOUS article written by a xtian. so u call this not being judgemental?Originally posted by Icemoon:did the story show the student to be judgemental?
and if I get it right .. it is the professor who put the student down first. similarly, I see many non believers trying to put xtians down. you see the no. of threads started in CC bashing christianity?
The non believers in EH are ok .. in fact they are a cool bunch of pple
as for non-believers bashing xtians in CC, I looked today and the only 1 i see is a battle between catholics n protestants. Most times non believers would rather not have anything to do with talking about the religion. we only come in when we see some provocative title, and more often than not, xtians are the ones who start them. -
Wahaha .. now we have Christians using Christ's law over Mosaic law to argue about sexual immorality.Originally posted by HENG@:I asked another few Christian friends about these passages. This is what one of them said: "u're reading old testament, that's when? before Jesus come right?"
Interesting .. let me see .. who can give the best ans here?
I think breytonhartge and laoda are suitable. too bad they like not very free now. -
you say it is a story liao .. so we know the author is not claiming the scenario is real. are we clear on this?Originally posted by HENG@:omg do u still not get it, the student and the professor are both creations of an xtian. the xtian who wrote it set out deliberately to MAKE the professor, who is a fictional creation of the xtian author, look bad. I don't care what happens in the story, i don't care if the student in it is judgemental or not because the whole bloody story is FAKE, non of that Shit actually happened.WHAT concerns me is that the person who started this thread IS XTIAN, trying to make atheists look bad. so i wonder wots the point of xtians trying to put other beliefs down then? u have to admit it was an xtian who started this thread to make atheists look bad with a FICTIOUS article written by a xtian. so u call this not being judgemental?
if you are ST reporting on your version of the NKF story, will you make Durai or Davinder look bad?
anyway .. how is the atheist made to look bad? Read through the argument .. it is how it would progress even if it is a real scenario. Add to Bunta's part 3 and it will still flow. I have no problems even if the student lost the argument.as for non-believers bashing xtians in CC, I looked today and the only 1 i see is a battle between catholics n protestants. Most times non believers would rather not have anything to do with talking about the religion. we only come in when we see some provocative title, and more often than not, xtians are the ones who start them.
there are many potential ones. the hungry ghost, city harvest, even bunta started a dunno what harvester thread. and you know i know the forummers who keep on bashing xtianity. -
don't you all see the problem?
if we add in part 3 and it happens to be an atheist who post that, will you still say the same thing?
I think if atheist posts it .. none of you will speak up .. perhaps you will join in the foray and laugh at the xtians. -
i will ignore it, simply because it serves no purpose either to xtians or atheists to spark off this debate, regardless of WHO started itOriginally posted by Icemoon:don't you all see the problem?
if we add in part 3 and it happens to be an atheist who post that, will you still say the same thing?
I think if atheist posts it .. none of you will speak up .. perhaps you will join in the foray and laugh at the xtians.you say it is a story liao .. so we know the author is not claiming the scenario is real. are we clear on this?
oh yes indeed, so maybe u would like to stop claiming that the prof started the challenge 1st. he did not, how could he when he does not exist?if you are ST reporting on your version of the NKF story, will you make Durai or Davinder look bad?
If I were ST, I wouldn't have to do anything other than report the truth. The man himself made himself look bad, by getting such a large pay from a bloody CHARITY ORG. The truth itself will make him look bad. Reporting of the truth, and fabricating a ficticious story are 2 different things here, get that clear. -
seriously, if u were to say we have to follow the bible strictly, wouldn't everyone be lying when they say the believe in the bible? U can tell me that u believe some parts are true and the other parts which would inconvenience u(like not wearing mixed fibres and keeping facial hair) aren't.Originally posted by Icemoon:Wahaha .. now we have Christians using Christ's law over Mosaic law to argue about sexual immorality.
Interesting .. let me see .. who can give the best ans here?
I think breytonhartge and laoda are suitable. too bad they like not very free now. -
I think you're looking at the most unlikely person who can give the best answer.Originally posted by Icemoon:Wahaha .. now we have Christians using Christ's law over Mosaic law to argue about sexual immorality.
Interesting .. let me see .. who can give the best ans here?
I think breytonhartge and laoda are suitable. too bad they like not very free now.
There is no best answer.
-
A couple of cents worth..... but forgive me if I might miss a few points:
1. Ignore the darn story already!!!! It is completely fictitous and had been making it's round too many times. Might have been conjured to make a point in some Christian magazines or at the pulpit but I personally feel it is totally out of place here. Sorry, Honey.... just my opinion
2. The issue on the various teachings in the OT vs the teachings in the NT. Let's be pragmatic about it. Some of these teachings:
a. were cultural in nature - needing an understanding to the largely agricultural background of the people of Israel would be necessary.
b. need an understanding in the language used in those days. I'd once mention the concept of "slave" in the OT is different from what we know today.
c. were specific to a group of people ie, the epistles of Paul and Peter
d. were historical, meant to be read as a record of the events that had taken place, these are typically NOT doctrinal in nature.
Many of these teachings were adapted to be part of our lifestyle because they are proven to be good: eg monogamy (note that polygamy is common in the OT), heterosexualism (for the purpose of procreation),
I'd read somewhere in SGforums recently that internet links were included to prove that homosexuals exist in the animal kingdom to be taken that it is natural. If we go that way, might as state that genocide is natural, incest is natural, infanticide is natural - all because some animals do it.
Church teachings, like any teachings, do evolve. Whether we will see homosexuality being accepted as part of a Christian life by ALL churches remain to be seen, but at any given point in time in history, every creed and beliefs will have their stand, otherwise how can they exist?
When I was a teenager, musical instruments were confined to the pipe organ in the sanctuary. Anything beyond that is seen as sacrilege when used in worship. Over the last 15 yrs, it has evolved so much that not many churches use the pipe organ solely. Even my extremely conservative liturgical service sees an occasional violin and saxophone. -
All i can say is Yes faith is the key thing to this whole debate but the student has misplaced his faith because god is also evil, just that he make himself look good by making a satan who is evil.
-
then why didn't you ignore this topic?Originally posted by HENG@:i will ignore it, simply because it serves no purpose either to xtians or atheists to spark off this debate, regardless of WHO started itoh yes indeed, so maybe u would like to stop claiming that the prof started the challenge 1st. he did not, how could he when he does not exist?
The proffy was just a character, perhaps the epitome of science and logic. The story reflects reality - some people do have bones to pick and challenge believers using science and logic.
I challenge you to show me these kind of people don't exist.
The author never claimed the "story" was real, and neither did killer boss. As such, they were not guilty of fabrication.Reporting of the truth, and fabricating a ficticious story are 2 different things here, get that clear.
so you mean there have been no cases of atheist challenging believers on that basis?
whether reporting a story or truth, there will be a biased slant to it. -
Because homosexual behaviours can be found in many many animal species.Originally posted by Chin Eng:I'd read somewhere in SGforums recently that internet links were included to prove that homosexuals exist in the animal kingdom to be taken that it is natural. If we go that way, might as state that genocide is natural, incest is natural, infanticide is natural - all because some animals do it.
July 27, 2004
Dr. Geoff MacFarlane cites 450 animal species with gay behavior
Koalas do it. Wallabies do it. Even penguins and dolphins in the sea do it. They all engage in sexual activity with the same gender. Dr Geoff MacFarlane, a lecturer in biological sciences at the University of Newcastle, said it had been argued previously that sexual behavior between members of the same sex was against the laws of nature, and unusual or deviant in wild animals. But recent scientific evidence "forcefully demolishes these assumptions." MacFarlane, who will give a public lecture on the topic tomorrow in Sydney, said more than 450 species worldwide had been identified as exhibiting some homosexual behavior.
smh.com.au
The most famous being Roy and Silo in Central Park Zoo, New York. The pair of penguin who are into monogamous relationship for a long while.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/site/newsweek/
Those other behaviours you had listed can be found only in a very small subset of animals. And they performed acts like incest (when kept by human beings), infanticide (when disturbed by human beings) mostly under "unnatural" circumstances.
As to why black widow spider kills off her mate, and other related strange animals antics, these are usually limited to very few species.. -
this is my favourite gay animal story.. so please indulge me.. heh..
Feb. 23 - Birds do it. Bees do it. And, it turns out, even the penguins at the Central Park Zoo do it. So let's do it: Let's let gay people make a lifelong commitment to each other openly and in public.
I reached this Cole Porter-esque conclusion on Valentine's Day when, in my ongoing quest to understand why some heterosexuals believe that gay marriage will destroy their "traditional" marriages, I stopped by the Central Park Zoo to interview the famously gay penguins, Roy and Silo. You may not know about Roy and Silo, but we New Yorkers have been mighty proud since they came out in 1998. Finally, instead of having New York's collective sex life defined by the floozy, commitment-challenged heterosexual women of "Sex and the City" or the pages of personal ads taken out by single losers, we finally had a First Couple of Monogamy that would show the world that love and fidelity could still conquer all (plus, they looked great in their little tuxedos).
Roy and Silo's love is a story for the ages. Like so many great lovers, Roy and Silo met in a zoo holding tank in 1998. They were young then, and unsure of themselves sexually like many adolescents (and when I say "adolescents," of course, I mean me). But their attraction could not be denied, and they have remained inseparable, according to Central Park Zoo penguin keeper Rob Gramzay.
Gramzay knew that Roy and Silo had paired off, because at breeding time, they did everything the "straight" penguins did: they built a nest, they defended it from others and engaged in what zookeepers euphemistically call "ecstatic display." It sounds kinky, but it simply means that the penguins stand straight up, stretch out their wings and entwine their necks. It's the penguin equivalent of going to City Hall in San Francisco. (As an aside, isn't S.F. mayor Gavin Newsom a genius? By allowing gays to marry, not only is he sending a powerful civil rights message, but every one of those gay couples had to buy a marriage license. At $83 a pop, Newsom has added almost $400,000 to the strapped civic treasury—money that certainly won't be refunded when President Bush amends the Constitution to do something no reasonable compassionate conservative would ever do: Make it less protective of individual freedom and personal liberty rather than more).
Back in the tank, Roy and Silo's behavior indicated that they really wanted a kid. Zookeepers gave them a dummy penguin egg, just to see if they'd actually incubate it. When they did, zookeepers gave them an actual egg, which Roy and Silo again incubated. When the baby chick was born, Roy and Silo cared for it, feeding it yummy regurgitated smelt and keeping it warm until it could survive on its own.
Years later, Roy and Silo are still going strong. And so are all their heterosexual penguin pals who share the tank with them. So that dispels one myth about gay marriage: Roy and Silo's commitment to each other has not destroyed the sanctity of the other penguin marriages. Gramzay said the penguin divorce rate remains the same as it was before Roy and Silo hooked up.
Not that you see much "hooking up." I'll admit it, I had gone to Central Park in hopes of seeing some hot gay penguin sex, but it turns out that penguins pretty much ignore each other until mating season, which begins in about six weeks. So when I visited the tank last week, Roy was puttering around with a rock while Silo swam and barely made eye contact. In other words, they looked liked an old married couple.
Besides, sex in the penguin world—straight or gay—isn't all that hot (and it's barely sex). Penguins don't have genitals, per se, so gay penguin sex is exactly the same as straight penguin sex (not to be graphic here, but it basically involves the locking of cloacae. Can I say "cloacae" on a family Web site?). The only difference, Gramzay said, is that Roy and Silo unlock before, um, "completion."
That sounded strange to me, so I called my thespian friend, Eric Oleson (it's okay to call him that because he's openly thespian). As a gay man, Oleson was impressed by Roy and Silo's commitment to each other, despite a climax-free sex life. "It's actually kind of sweet," Oleson said. "They realize that they don't have the equipment, yet they're still devoted to each other. It shows that gay marriage is not just about sex." (Another gay-marriage myth dispelled! Just because a couple can't breed, doesn't mean it can't love. And, after all, Roy and Silo successfully adopted.)
So if Roy and Silo can do it, why can't humans? Indeed, if homosexual marriages exist in the animal kingdom, they must be normal. Then again, many opponents of gay marriage say that anything animals do is, well, animalistic and they want no part of it. But by that logic, we should give up straight sex, too, because animals pretty much invented it (and the French perfected it). And if Roy and Silo haven't destroyed the other penguins' heterosexual relationships, why do so many human heterosexuals feel that their marriages will be undermined just because a few thousand gays in San Francisco are pledging to spend the rest of their lives together?
After all, human marriage has somehow survived a 50-percent divorce rate. As Roy and Silo prove in their tank in Central Park, marriage will survive letting gays into the imperfect club, too. -
I think one good way to approach it would be to try understand the reason for certain practices.Originally posted by HENG@:seriously, if u were to say we have to follow the bible strictly, wouldn't everyone be lying when they say the believe in the bible? U can tell me that u believe some parts are true and the other parts which would inconvenience u(like not wearing mixed fibres and keeping facial hair) aren't.
I believe Chin Eng gave a summary of the various kinds of practices in the OT. I listed another important one during my "debate" with laoda last time. If you remember, I said all the funny sacrifice practices are not applicable today, as they are "Temple practices".
There is another commandment from the Pentateuch, can't remember which, but Jews take the liberty to use a substitute as the original one stated in Scripture does not exist or too hard to find.
So you see, practices are not dead and they do evolve.
-
Usually when i click on the 50 Newest Topics, i dont see the forum i go in, its usually the title which begs to be a flamebait.
Besides, own forum is not a good excuse to post flame baiting or bashing topics. If this is done thru emails or discussion within one own cell group, i guess the only group that ought to be interested in this should be the ISD, or whoever enforce the Religious Harmony Act. Any other people would be super KPO people or have nuthing to do.
But this is a public forum, and the title is clear on the 50 Newest Topics.
Also, look at moderators of other forums. They are stricter when it comes to religious or racial issues, even anything that hints of flaming or bashing, the forumers are cautioned or advised.
Look, like i said before, Christianity is a faith which needs a certain amount of, or even total denial of other faiths. But its the bloody mouth of some Christians, and i mean some, not all, who really spit out stuff without considering their implications. There are a few topics i do really bashed, because, from a christian perspective, it looks allright, but on public forum, i dare say its a big no no.
The only advice i can give is this, b4 you guys post sumthing, do consider the implications of your topic, with regards to religious harmony, on a bloody public forum. And if need to be, go rebutt based on that guy points, not on his faith.
I just checked with the hungry ghost festival thread, its disappointing to see most christians rebutt not on whatever the bashers say, but on the perception the people bash because they believe Christian teachings are affront to his faith, which he did not. Those guys do make a lot of unjustified comments, but i tot the logical way is argue back, instead of flaming whatever faiths you guys tot they are from. As such, there are many unjustified comments on Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. -
no leh .. the num 3 forum hor .. the moderators like not doing work leh ..Originally posted by laurence82:Also, look at moderators of other forums. They are stricter when it comes to religious or racial issues, even anything that hints of flaming or bashing, the forumers are cautioned or advised.
I think FI just sit back and watch fun only.
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
Ah.. I forgot to mention that I agree with every other things that you have said..
A couple of cents worth..... but forgive me if I might miss a few points:
1. [b]Ignore the darn story already!!!! It is completely fictitous and had been making it's round too many times. Might have been conjured to make a point in some Christian magazines or at the pulpit but I personally feel it is totally out of place here. Sorry, Honey.... just my opinion
2. The issue on the various teachings in the OT vs the teachings in the NT. Let's be pragmatic about it. Some of these teachings:
a. were cultural in nature - needing an understanding to the largely agricultural background of the people of Israel would be necessary.
b. need an understanding in the language used in those days. I'd once mention the concept of "slave" in the OT is different from what we know today.
c. were specific to a group of people ie, the epistles of Paul and Peter
d. were historical, meant to be read as a record of the events that had taken place, these are typically NOT doctrinal in nature.
Many of these teachings were adapted to be part of our lifestyle because they are proven to be good: eg monogamy (note that polygamy is common in the OT), heterosexualism (for the purpose of procreation),
I'd read somewhere in SGforums recently that internet links were included to prove that homosexuals exist in the animal kingdom to be taken that it is natural. If we go that way, might as state that genocide is natural, incest is natural, infanticide is natural - all because some animals do it.
Church teachings, like any teachings, do evolve. Whether we will see homosexuality being accepted as part of a Christian life by ALL churches remain to be seen, but at any given point in time in history, every creed and beliefs will have their stand, otherwise how can they exist?
When I was a teenager, musical instruments were confined to the pipe organ in the sanctuary. Anything beyond that is seen as sacrilege when used in worship. Over the last 15 yrs, it has evolved so much that not many churches use the pipe organ solely. Even my extremely conservative liturgical service sees an occasional violin and saxophone.[/b]
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:no leh .. the num 3 forum hor .. the moderators like not doing work leh ..
I think FI just sit back and watch fun only. Hmm... -
i should have clarifyOriginally posted by Icemoon:no leh .. the num 3 forum hor .. the moderators like not doing work leh ..
I think FI just sit back and watch fun only.
with exception of Chit Chat
and you are right, FI wouldnt care one
thats why that flame thread still stays
not forgetting one thread last time, where there were much flaming, she was enjoying the show till i msn her to go shut it down
and she did, albeit reluctantly...
sheesh, impartiality? my foot.... -
one extra post to boost this month's forum rating ..Originally posted by HENG@:seriously, if u were to say we have to follow the bible strictly, wouldn't everyone be lying when they say the believe in the bible? U can tell me that u believe some parts are true and the other parts which would inconvenience u(like not wearing mixed fibres and keeping facial hair) aren't.
actually if you ask me, I rather believe in this - the reason why we don't wear tassal is 'cos we are not Jews. Some commandments are there for Jews only. They are circumcised and had a covenant with God. What they do with those commandments are not our biz .. wahaha .. solve all the problems. -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
yeah, read about them somewhere....
this is my favourite gay animal story.. so please indulge me.. heh..
my point is.... just because some animals are found to do it (and many other inhumane things too) does not make it a reason for humans to do it.... the reason is not compelling enough..... plus, what sets us apart from the other living things in the world? just like why would a dog want to hump a human leg does not necessary make a limb belonging to a coworker as my sex partner. some of these research were obviously financed by the gay community and some of the links given were actually branches of gay websites. I don't believe such "evidence" is admissible. -
what make humans different from animals? noneOriginally posted by Chin Eng:yeah, read about them somewhere....
my point is.... just because some animals are found to do it (and many other inhumane things too) does not make it a reason for humans to do it.... the reason is not compelling enough..... plus, what sets us apart from the other living things in the world? just like why would a dog want to hump a human leg does not necessary make a limb belonging to a coworker as my sex partner. some of these research were obviously financed by the gay community and some of the links given were actually branches of gay websites. I don't believe such "evidence" is admissible.
in fact, in many ways, animals are even more respectable than humans
i am more scared of a human than a hungry lion
and another point, u said because these researches are financed by the gay community, therefore its inadmissible
pls do highlight whats wrong with the research than what your biasness is -
Our ability to think which comes about when we can "Imagine", to hold thoughts in mind and to process thoughts in mind. But this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.Originally posted by Chin Eng:yeah, read about them somewhere....
my point is.... just because some animals are found to do it (and many other inhumane things too) does not make it a reason for humans to do it.... the reason is not compelling enough..... plus, what sets us apart from the other living things in the world? A gay is not intellectually less capable than straight.
nah, the dog just wanna masterbate. And with his feet that short, he has to seek support from his best friend..Originally posted by Chin Eng: just like why would a dog want to hump a human leg does not necessary make a limb belonging to a coworker as my sex partner.
True but not all. In fact, the gay penguin article is not found on a gay website.Originally posted by Chin Eng: some of these research were obviously financed by the gay community and some of the links given were actually branches of gay websites. I don't believe such "evidence" is admissible.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/site/newsweek/
And with countries like Canada, Spain, Holland and Belgium accepting gay marriages, it means that the majority of the population (including both gays and straights) have accept homosexuality as natural as heterosexuality and hence should be accorded with equal rights.
Not all gay activists are gays -
True. Its not surprising to find even heterosexuals in gay rights movement.
We must not forget that the westerners are a lot more assertive of their rights than we are, so its not surprising to see one grp of people fighting for other people rights