PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 29, 2015 at 11:07 AM
-
I wanted to create this thread to present this nice message from Fr. James Martin, SJ (a Jesuit priest who has authored several books)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIgrFu2UYAIL9Xf.jpg)
-
wala namang mali sa sinasabi ng priest na ito...
he specifically state "hatred to homosexuality"... did he mention "hatred to homosexuals"?
personally: i dont hate smokers - i hate smoking... i dont hate prostitute, i hate prostitution... i dont hate gamblers - i hate gambling... i dont hate homosexual - i hate homosexuality
being homosexual is not a sin... homosexuality is...
Bible doesnt hate homosexuals... Bible hates homosexuality...
Bible doesnt hate sinners... Bible hates sin...
ayon sa Bibliya love one another (including homosexuals/lgbt)... and at the same sinasabi din sa Bibliya na kamuhian natin ang kasalanan...
ang term na "God made me like this" is not an excuse to exercise homosexuality... lahat tayo ipinanganak na makasalanan it doesnt mean we need to live bilang isang makalasanan... each of us still have a choice.
-
Fr. James Martin is one of the more progressive priests out there. He's a Jesuit and believe it or not, lots of Jesuits are progressive thinkers and a lot of them support LGBT rights and marriage equality.
-
i rather believe the Bible kesa sa mga sinasabi ng ibang tao :):):)
imho... i rather choose to believe a child qouting a Bible than a catholic priest :)
-
but the bible is just written by man... soo....
-
but the bible is just written by man... soo....
Amen..
-
but the bible is just written by man... soo....
QFT.
Amen, indeed.
To advance that, organized religion is a construct created by man as well... sooo....
-
QFT.
Amen, indeed.
To advance that, organized religion is a construct created by man as well... sooo....
To control man... Sooo...
-
Yes that is very true... Still ill believe the Bible amd i choose it than any catholic priest and To prove that the Bible is written by God is another thing... We can discuss it in other thread :-)
The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong and is unnatural... Most of religions around the world believe that homosexuality is wrong...
-
Lots of things are condemned in the Bible as "unnatural" - Working on a Sunday, shaving your beard, eating shellfish, wearing two types of cloth on your body. The Bible also seems to be okay with forcing your daughter to marry her rapist and owning slaves. Everyone cherry-picks the Bible and chooses to read it in their own way.
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1939444_922950577734396_3202163858725274414_n.jpg?oh=667c81f4239bd722691a96b9e928a4ba&oe=5625361A)
-
my last post here:
The Bible never condemns nor hate homosexuals in fact God died for them.
The Bible old and new testament shows that homosexuality is a sin.
-
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1939444_922950577734396_3202163858725274414_n.jpg?oh=667c81f4239bd722691a96b9e928a4ba&oe=5625361A)
- Divorce is not punishable by death.
- The Old Testament allowed divorce.
- Jesus Christ also allowed divorce.
- The bible does say something about the homosexual lifestyle.
The smartass who wrote that doesn't know anything about the bible.
... shaving your beard, eating shellfish, wearing two types of cloth on your body. The Bible also seems to be okay with forcing your daughter to marry her rapist and owning slaves. ...
You have no idea how Mosaic law is properly applied.
What is the meaning of the phrase, "rightly dividing the word of truth" in 2 Tim. 2:15?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A15&version=KJV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A15&version=KJV)
Working on a Sunday...
On a Sunday?
Do you even know the difference between a Sabbath and a Roman Sunday?
-
To control man... Sooo...
QFT.
Amen, indeed.
To advance that, organized religion is a construct created by man as well... sooo....
Mostly likely by lawyers, kaya "mahirap" intindihin...sooo....
-
Sir barrister, just to know where you're coming from, are you for or against marriage equality?
-
bookmarking ..
-
Sir barrister, just to know where you're coming from, are you for or against marriage equality?
That's a fair question. Maybe I do need to clarify.
I am against SSM on religious grounds. But from the purely secular point of view, I am not against it.
That's because my objections are only religious, and I don't impose my religious beliefs on others.
===================================
You and others say the bible was only written by man.
The way I understand it, you meant you do not believe that the bible is of divine inspiration.
Sa akin, OK yon. If you don't believe in the bible, there's no problem. Wala namang pilitan yon.
But my problem is when others think that they can use the bible against the bible-believer to prove that the latter is wrong. Yon ang akala nila. Hindi kasi ako yung nakausap nila, e... :D
My advice to the LGBT rights activists ---- don't use the bible to prove your views, because you will not succeed.
Huwag nilang isipin na may nabasa lang silang mga bible interpretations na pro-LGBT sa internet, akala nila eksperto na sila sa bibliya. Samantalang basic terms na malakoi and arsenokoitai lang, hindi pa alam.
-
Well, I don't want to quote a self contradicting book with ridiculous rules and lots of plot holes. Whether people agree or not, marriage is a civil and social issue and not a religious one.
-
Well, I don't want to quote a self contradicting book with ridiculous rules and lots of plot holes. Whether people agree or not, marriage is a civil and social issue and not a religious one.
No, it's not true that the bible is self-contradicting. Cite one "contradiction" and I'll explain why it's reconcilable.
The concept of "contradictions" in the bible is not new. Some of the earliest ones were from Muslim authors like Rahmatullah Kairanawi, who in the 19th century alleged that there were 119 contradictions in the bible.
These days, you have the Western copycats who repeatedly come up with their own lists of contradictions. They're usually atheists who took their cue from Kairanawi and Dr. Shabir Ally. Yung mga Pinoy naman, sa Amerikano pumulot ng "contradictions" sa internet... :D
I acknowledge that even if the bible had no contradictions, that would still not be sufficient proof that the bible is true. It can still be an invented fairy tale, only that it it is a fairly tale that contains no contradictions.
That's why I said, if you don't believe the bible, that's up to you and I have no problem with that.
But if you're going to say that the bible is self-contradicting, you'd better be prepared to back up your statement.
-
Well, I don't want to quote a self contradicting book with ridiculous rules and lots of plot holes. Whether people agree or not, marriage is a civil and social issue and not a religious one.
If this is true why are priests in Texas being forced by law to wed gays? If the they want to get married via judge alone then that would be a different story.
for reference are you leo a christian?
-
If this is true why are priests in Texas being forced by law to wed gays?
Where did you hear that? I doubt that is true. Probably fear-mongering from anti-gay groups. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they want. The legalization is for civil marriage. If you want a religious gay marriage, you have to find a gay-friendly church (meron din ganoon).
-
Where did you hear that? I doubt that is true. Probably fear-mongering from anti-gay groups. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they want. The legalization is for civil marriage. If you want a religious gay marriage, you have to find a gay-friendly church (meron din ganoon).
The Episcopal Church approves religious weddings for gay couples after controversial debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/01/why-the-episcopal-church-is-still-debating-gay-marriage/
-
hey kalus, sorry but can't seem to find the article again. saw it in cnn's website. If what you say is correct then lgbt marriage in a civil scenario is difficult to or cannot be debated (at least is the US).
-
Where did you hear that? I doubt that is true. Probably fear-mongering from anti-gay groups. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they want. The legalization is for civil marriage. If you want a religious gay marriage, you have to find a gay-friendly church (meron din ganoon).
cant they find a friendly gay business othen than to target known conservatice religious business owner (well you know pera din yan kapag nanalo sa kaso)...
-
cant they find a friendly gay business othen than to target known conservatice religious business owner (well you know pera din yan kapag nanalo sa kaso)...
Nakakabanas lang when gay couples insist on businesses to cater to them when it is against the religious belief of the business owners.. Sasabihin ng LGBT couple discrimination daw.. Eh di ba discrimination din yan when you force somebody to cater to you when it is against their beliefs?
-
Nakakabanas lang when gay couples insist on businesses to cater to them when it is against the religious belief of the business owners.. Sasabihin ng LGBT couple discrimination daw.. Eh di ba discrimination din yan when you force somebody to cater to you when it is against their beliefs?
Let's just say hindi gay, what if instead mga racist ang owners at ayaw nila sa mga blacks o sa mga Pinoy o sa mga Katoliko dahil bawal daw sa relihiyon nila ang i-serve ang mga taong ganoon. Di ba masama din yun? That's discrimination. If you're a business open to the public, then it's understood that you should serve everyone. One compromise I would allow is that if they wish to discriminate against customers, they need to place it in their signage and their ads: "NO GAYS ALLOWED" so as to save them the trouble of trying to acquire their services and the humiliation of being turned down.
Anyway these "religious objections" are hypocritical to say the least: Divorce was explicitly condemned by Jesus but I'm pretty sure most if not all these bakeries and flower shops don't ask if either the bride or groom are getting re-married to another person after a divorce. Isn't that like celebrating their adultery? So, yes, this is a purely "I hate gays" sort of thing.
-
Its not the people we are against at... Its their practice...
We dont hate homosexuals... We hate homosexuality er same sex marriage
Bakit ba pinagapipilitan mo na di allowed ang divorce sa Bible eh allowed nga ang divorce sa Bible... :-)
If u deny homosexuals because they are homosexual then it is discrimination...
If u deny black because thay are black it is discrimination...
If u deny catholics for being catholics then it is discrimination...
If u deny heterosexuals because they are heterosexuals then it is discrimination...
BUT
if u deny homosexuals because of their practice of ssm then it is not discrimination
If u deny catholics becaude they are going to use ur place as place of worship then it is not a discriminaion
If u deny blacks becausr they arw goig to use ur business for hteir illegal practice then it is not discrimination...
If u deny heterosexual because if their practice of marriage then it isnot diacrimination...
Gets?
Its not about color, race, or srxual preference... It is all about practice that we dont like to be part of... I dont want my place or my business to be use by any person for any practice that i believe is wrong. . I dont even allow any customer na magsmoke or maginuman sa vicinity ng business ko... Because i believe it is wrong...and i dont want to be part of that practice. .
Gets?
-
Let's just say hindi gay, what if instead mga racist ang owners at ayaw nila sa mga blacks o sa mga Pinoy o sa mga Katoliko dahil bawal daw sa relihiyon nila ang i-serve ang mga taong ganoon. Di ba masama din yun? That's discrimination. If you're a business open to the public, then it's understood that you should serve everyone. One compromise I would allow is that if they wish to discriminate against customers, they need to place it in their signage and their ads: "NO GAYS ALLOWED" so as to save them the trouble of trying to acquire their services and the humiliation of being turned down.
Anyway these "religious objections" are hypocritical to say the least: Divorce was explicitly condemned by Jesus but I'm pretty sure most if not all these bakeries and flower shops don't ask if either the bride or groom are getting re-married to another person after a divorce. Isn't that like celebrating their adultery? So, yes, this is a purely "I hate gays" sort of thing.
This LGBT people dont get it when they are refused. They can always go to other businesses right. Why insist. Why sue those people who do not want to serve you. Importante lang respeto sa belief ng ibang tao.
-
Let's just say hindi gay, what if instead mga racist ang owners at ayaw nila sa mga blacks o sa mga Pinoy o sa mga Katoliko dahil bawal daw sa relihiyon nila ang i-serve ang mga taong ganoon. Di ba masama din yun? That's discrimination. If you're a business open to the public, then it's understood that you should serve everyone. One compromise I would allow is that if they wish to discriminate against customers, they need to place it in their signage and their ads: "NO GAYS ALLOWED" so as to save them the trouble of trying to acquire their services and the humiliation of being turned down.
Hindi ba magkaiba yun comparison mo? Businesses don't refuse to sell to somebody who is gay. The business owner refuses to participate in a gay event because it is against his religion. Magkaiba yun a gay person enters a restaurant to eat there compared to hiring the restaurant to cater a gay wedding.
If you insist to use race, A business sells to a black person. But it's a different matter to cater a black wedding.....if that is against his religion.
-
my faith says that smoking is wrong and a sin...
if i reject catholics because they said they are going to smoke in my business place - is it discrimination?
if i reject black because they said they are going to smoke in my business place - is it discrimination?
if i reject heterosexuals because they said they are going to smoke in my business place - is it discrimination?
if i reject homosexuals because they said they are going to smoke in my business place - is it discrimination?
-
Early Christians performed gay marriages. (http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108/953627434)
An explanation of anti-gay passages in the Bible. (http://www.upworthy.com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say)
It will most likely not change any minds but whatever...I'll post it anway.
-
i do favor marriage between individuals that have sperms and eggs and can perpetuate the homo sapiens species...
not because of any religious considerations.....it is nature, period....
just because they were dong it in the past makes the practice right.....
-
i do favor marriage between individuals that have sperms and eggs and can perpetuate the homo sapiens species...
Do you want to outlaw heterosexual marriages between sterile couples and older couples? What about couples who choose not to have children? Should natural procreation be a requirement for marriage?
-
Do you want to outlaw heterosexual marriages between sterile couples and older couples? What about couples who choose not to have children? Should natural procreation be a requirement for marriage?
no.....i said i want a fighting chance for the species to carry on....
a male can marry another male, a female another female, for all i care....
why just recently a mayor even took a crocodile for his bride and married the crocodile....
even Catherine the Great of Russia was rumored to have done it with a stallion...
people can do as they please....
what never fails to amaze me is your penchant for the LGBT...
as if they should get special treatment...and all attention as if those are the superior kind...
-
Early christian kills it doesnt mean we need to do it today also.
-
Do you want to outlaw heterosexual marriages between sterile couples and older couples? What about couples who choose not to have children? Should natural procreation be a requirement for marriage?
Maliwanag naman kung ano ang marriage under the law.
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code
Maliwanag din ang requirements...
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer
-
no.....i said i want a fighting chance for the species to carry on....
You do realize that there are 7 billion people in the world, right? Unless you know something I don't know, I think our species will be fine for a while.
what never fails to amaze me is your penchant for the LGBT...
as if they should get special treatment...and all attention as if those are the superior kind...
What exactly are they asking for that's so special? They simply want the same rights as anyone else.
-
What exactly are they asking for that's so special? They simply want the same rights as anyone else.
You are confusing rights with the law. Basic human rights is afforded every individual. This is different from law. Your basic rights are also afforded the LGBT community in conjunction with Philippine law. They do have the same rights as anyone else. Yes even marriage but strictly guided by what the law dictates. Asking for SSM is special. Because you need an act of congress for that to happen.
-
You are confusing rights with the law. Basic human rights is afforded every individual. This is different from law. Your basic rights are also afforded the LGBT community in conjunction with Philippine law. They do have the same rights as anyone else. Yes even marriage but strictly guided by what the law dictates. Asking for SSM is special. Because you need an act of congress for that to happen.
Aha. Yes, in Philippine law is very old-fashioned and heteronormative. Sinali kasi ni Cory ang mga bishops eh. Yan tuloy.
-
Aha. Yes, in Philippine law is very old-fashioned and heteronormative. Sinali kasi ni Cory ang mga bishops eh. Yan tuloy.
dura lex sed lex
-
What exactly are they asking for that's so special? They simply want the same rights as anyone else.
everyone have the rights na mag-asawa... lahat dito sa Pilipinas ay may karapatang mag-asawa... pantay pantay naman tayo dito...
sino ba nagsabi na hindi pantay ang karapatan ng mga Pilipino pagdating sa pag-aasawa?
-
You do realize that there are 7 billion people in the world, right? Unless you know something I don't know, I think our species will be fine for a while.
What exactly are they asking for that's so special? They simply want the same rights as anyone else.
that was what the Mayan's must have thought back then, until their civilization declined and vanished...
-
I thought this was supposed to be the "religious version" thread.
If it's not about religion, post it in the original LGBT thread.
Otherwise, what's the point? Dalawa pa yung tinitignan ko, pareho lang pala ang laman. Hay, special talaga... ::)
-
Na bring up kasi ni Klaus yun "outlaw" and equal rights. :)
-
Hindi ba magkaiba yun comparison mo? Businesses don't refuse to sell to somebody who is gay. The business owner refuses to participate in a gay event because it is against his religion. Magkaiba yun a gay person enters a restaurant to eat there compared to hiring the restaurant to cater a gay wedding.
If you insist to use race, A business sells to a black person. But it's a different matter to cater a black wedding.....if that is against his religion.
There's a very entertaining The Good Wife episode about this.
-
Eating shellfish ? The Bible said it is not that comes in our mouth that defiles a man but that what comes out of his/her mouth
Working on sabbath? Sabbath was made for man not man for sabbath.
Okay lang kung anuman kainin natin ayon sa Bibliya at ayos lang din ang magtrabaho on sabbath day... Pero wala akong nabasa na sinasabing okay lang makipagsex sa kapwa lalake/babae.
-
^^pagkatanda ko ayon sa bible, okey lang ang mag astang bakla or tomboy ang bawal ay makipagtalik sa same sex...
-
^^pagkatanda ko ayon sa bible, okey lang ang mag astang bakla or tomboy ang bawal ay makipagtalik sa same sex...
Wala naman talaga tayo magagawa kung ipinanganak tayong malambot o straight... But still we have a choice whether to have sex or not. :-) so homosexuality is a choice not created.
-
^^pagkatanda ko ayon sa bible, okey lang ang mag astang bakla or tomboy ang bawal ay makipagtalik sa same sex...
There's nothing in the Bible that says that. It is simply the official stand of the Catholic Church with regards to homosexuality.
-
Eating shellfish ? The Bible said it is not that comes in our mouth that defiles a man but that what comes out of his/her mouth
Working on sabbath? Sabbath was made for man not man for sabbath.
Okay lang kung anuman kainin natin ayon sa Bibliya at ayos lang din ang magtrabaho on sabbath day... Pero wala akong nabasa na sinasabing okay lang makipagsex sa kapwa lalake/babae.
nabasa ko lang... bawal makipag sex ang lalake sa lakake o babae sa babae
-
IMO dapat di pwedeng ikasal ang lalake sa lalake or babae sa babae.
diba kasal is part ng religion. kasi kung religion aside pwede partners nalang yung dalawang bakla or tomboy; tapos same rights/privilege nalang sila ng married couple para wala ng arte. para naman di mabastos religion ng ibang tao.
wala naman yatang pakialam mga religion dun sa mga gustong pakasal na bakla eh, ayaw lang naman nila gawin yun doon sa religion/church nila. abusado talaga mga tao, gusto lahat makuha.
kung ako sa mga bakla and tomboy, refund nalang nila mga nabigay nila sa church nila kung ayaw silang ikasal doon, tapos wala nalang silang religion pero kasal sila; para walang gulo.
gay oppression card trumps race oppression card LOL
-
There's nothing in the Bible that says that. It is simply the official stand of the Catholic Church with regards to homosexuality.
it was mentioned in one of the four gospels....
-
it was mentioned in one of the four gospels....
ayon sa lgbt community at supporter ng homosexuality acts... mali raw ang pagkakaintindi natin... hindi raw iyon about same sex marriage or same gender sex :):):)
-
it was mentioned in one of the four gospels....
Ummm, no, it wasn't. Jesus never mentioned ANYTHING about homosexuality.
Unless, of course you count the time He healed the Roman centurion's "slave", a.k.a. pais, which btw also means "teenage boy lover". Some scholars INSIST it was just a slave or a servant. Others interpret that as Jesus healing a Roman centurion's gay lover. If it was just a slave or a servant, why would the Roman centurion go through the trouble to ask Jesus to heal him?
-
Yan na naman?
Number of times Jesus spoke against homosexual acts and homosexual relationships = zero.
So at worst, He was indifferent. And depending on how you interpret that one story involving the Roman centurion asking Jesus to heal his "slave" (in some texts, the "slave" is referred to as "pais", which also means "teenage boy lover"), maybe even pro-gay.
Luke 7:2 says "doulos" (slave or servant). Matthew 8:5 says "pais" (child).
The definition of doulos under Strong's Number 1401: http://biblehub.com/greek/1401.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/1401.htm)
The definition of pais under Strong's Number 3816: http://biblehub.com/greek/3816.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/3816.htm)
Therefore, reconciling the two verses, the person referred to is a slave or servant who is a child.
The Greek Interlinear states:
Luke 7:2 - http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/7.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/7.htm)
Matthew 8:5 - http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/8.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/8.htm)
To say that the servant is the centurion's homosexual lover is to add meaning that is not there.
-
Jesus did not specifically condemn same sex acts, so Jesus allowed it?
Jesus did not specifically condemn pedophilia, bestiality, rape, and incest either. This means Jesus allowed them?
You really should stop pretending to be a bible expert.
Jesus did not condemn shabu. Puwede nang mag shabu ang Kristiyano!
Tindi talaga... :D
-
Pedophilia, bestiality, rape, incest and drug abuse are obviously practices that can be harmful to a human being and to others.
A consensual same-sex relationship is harmful to no one.
-
Are you now avoiding biblical arguments?
This is a religion thread that you yourself started. Why suddenly shift to secular arguments?
Naubusan agad?
-
There's nothing in the Bible that says that. It is simply the official stand of the Catholic Church with regards to homosexuality.
If you say nothing in the bible prohibits homosexual sex acts, and I cite just one thing in the bible that prohibits it, that should be the end of it, right?
... I guess not. :D
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
-
The LGBT solution:
The Queen James Bible --- (yes, seriously) ---
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html)
-
Lol...
-
If it was just a slave or a servant, why would the Roman centurion go through the trouble to ask Jesus to heal him?
Why do people take their dogs to the vet? There can only be one reason --- they're having sex with their dogs.
Ganong kadakila ang logic non... :D
-
I brought my 24 year old lady kasambahay to the doctor when she was ill ano kaya ibig sabihin noon..
-
The LGBT solution:
The Queen James Bible --- (yes, seriously) ---
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html)
More of this, at panigurado, magkaka abs ako, 6-pack pa...
-
The LGBT solution:
The Queen James Bible --- (yes, seriously) ---
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/queen-james-bible-claims-first-ever-gay-bible_n_2324962.html)
malamang eto binabasa and pinagbabasihan ni klause ng mga comments nya. ;D
-
^if you disagree with another persons' religion,
go make up your own......hanep sa dami ng secta.... >:D
-
I brought my 24 year old lady kasambahay to the doctor when she was ill ano kaya ibig sabihin noon..
may malasakit ka sa kapakanan ng kasambahay mo....
-
Early christian practice ssm so we need to practice ssm now.
Jesus never mentioned about ssm so it is okay to practice ssm now.
A centurion go all the trouble to ask Jesus heal his servant it means that the centurion was having sex with his servant.
Sabi nga ni sir barrister "ganoon kadakila ang logic"
Early christian kills so it is okay to kill now
Jesus never mentioned bestiality, pedophilia so it is okay to practice them.
If you go all the trouble praying and asking God to heal your sick kasambahay it only means you and your kasambahay are having sex.
-
Early christian practice ssm so we need to practice ssm now.
Ito ba yon sir? --- Early Christians performed gay marriages. (http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108/953627434)
Wala yan, mali rin yan.
The basis for the article is Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, a book by gay historian John Boswell (1947-1994), who died from AIDS complications shortly after the book was published.
Boswell claimed an alleged practice of uniting two persons in marriage-like unions, but he did not claim that it was in fact a true "marriage."
Many academics who were experts on the subject disputed Boswell, noting that it was not a marriage-like union, but "Adelphopoiesis" --- a ceremonial friendship of spiritual brotherhood without sex.
The Greek Orthodox Church, where the practice originated, itself strongly disputes Boswell's theory, and regards his work as a modern American cultural appropriation of its tradition of adelphopoiesis, which is nothing more than a fraternization involving a chaste friendship.
Sa akin, wala naman akong pakialam sa paniniwala nila. I don't impose my religion on others.
Pero pag sinabi nilang ayos lang daw ang homosexual acts according to the Christian religion, ibang usapan na yon, at may pakialam na ko don. ;)
==================================
... Jesus never mentioned about ssm so it is okay to practice ssm now.
ito ba yon sir? ---Ummm, no, it wasn't. Jesus never mentioned ANYTHING about homosexuality.
Ang totoo, meron din. Hindi lang sila marunong umintindi.
Jesus said:
21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person. (Mark 7:21-23)
Nasaan diyan ang homosexual sex acts? E di sa "sexual immorality."
Jesus' audience already knew that homosexual sex was included in "sexual immorality," since they were familiar with Mosaic Law, which declares homosexual acts as an "abomination."
If homosexual acts were no longer included in sexual immorality, Jesus should have clearly said that they were already excluded, so as not to confuse His listeners.
Ang tanong, may sinabi ba si Jesus na OK na ngayon ang homosexual sex? Wala.
Therefore, the absence of direct specification, instead of strengthening the argument in favor of SSM, actually weakens it.
-
The definition of Traditional Marriage. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90_UlLSz6Nc)
-
Biblical Marriage: between man and woman
-
Biblical Marriage: between man and woman
Actually...
(http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/marriage.jpg)
-
Actually...
(http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/marriage.jpg)
oh... tama naman... man and woman...
kanina ko pa hinahanap pero wala talaga akong makitang (man and man) or (woman and woman) diyan sa illustration mo :):):)
pa double check nga kung may sinasabi ang bible sa ganito (baka kasi di ko lang napansin sa illustration mo):
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReE0YPfiLsO97LzJgGd9tKsKGSC9bw_N9AJW9PF7RuUB0L1-giGnILGxnX)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZZ1X9zf5LPZ2YTp7HEmGxAgBy11w73YiRFi3Doqaf3kiwheCdwRCwRw0)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReE0YPfiLsO97LzJgGd9tKsKGSC9bw_N9AJW9PF7RuUB0L1-giGnILGxnX)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0ILKrlFhS65rUqzh6ZzXdoSY0E42hGXd8DXtZj4Z-gzxmOxMwCtGHd27c)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZZ1X9zf5LPZ2YTp7HEmGxAgBy11w73YiRFi3Doqaf3kiwheCdwRCwRw0)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0ILKrlFhS65rUqzh6ZzXdoSY0E42hGXd8DXtZj4Z-gzxmOxMwCtGHd27c)
-
That depends on your interpretation of the relationship between David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi.
Six reasons why the Bible is not anti-gay. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm)
P.S. I haven't pointed this out but I find it amusing barrister thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is more accurate. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, a book that's thousands of years old and translated hundreds of times.
-
That depends on your interpretation of the relationship between David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi.
Six reasons why the Bible is not anti-gay. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm)
P.S. I haven't pointed this out but I find it amusing barrister thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is more accurate. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, a book that's thousands of years old and translated hundreds of times.
true... the Bible is not anti-gay... the Bible is not anti-homosexual... the Bible teaches to love them, to have compassion for them... but take note that the Bible is anti-homosexuality.
regaring David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth.... well we are talking about Biblical marriage... not relationship na nagexist in the Bible...
hmmm... is that a marriage between Jonathan and David? Ruth and Naomi got married? di ko alam yun ah...
-
Actually...
(http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/marriage.jpg)
Now you're muddling the issue. Where's LGBT there?
First you make an LGBT thread and freely mention the bible when it suits you. When I counter your biblical arguments, you make this LGBT-religion thread and tell us to move all LBGT biblical arguments here.
Then when I counter your biblical arguments on this thread, you shift to secular arguments. Now that you're back to the bible, you now shift from LGBT issues to opposite-sex issues of polygamy, concubinage, etc.
Why don't you just explain how you jumped to the conclusion that the centurion and his male servant had a sexual relationship simply because the centurion wanted a "highly valued" servant saved from death.
P.S. I haven't pointed this out but I find it amusing barrister thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is more accurate. There are lots of interpretations of the Bible, a book that's thousands of years old and translated hundreds of times.
In other words, this is what you're saying ---- The bible has many interpretations and translations; therefore, my interpretation of the bible is wrong.
That's an illogical non-sequitur.
That depends on your interpretation of the relationship between David & Jonathan and Ruth & Naomi.
Six reasons why the Bible is not anti-gay. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm)
David and Jonathan had a deep friendship, but there is no evidence that their relationship was sexual.
After Jonathan's death, David said this about him:
25 How the mighty have fallen in battle! Jonathan lies slain on your heights. 26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
Jonathan’s love was selfless and heroic, but not sexual. Even though he was in line to be the next king of Israel, he recognized that David would step into that role. Jonathan laid down his rights so his friend could be promoted. He opposed his father's selfish ambition and instead affirmed that David should be the true king.
David’s comment that his friend’s love was "more wonderful than the love of women" was not a comparison of sexual prowess; he was referring to the greatness of his sacrifice for a friend.
Ruth and Naomi had a strong family relationship, because Ruth was the daughter-in-law of Naomi.
Naomi lost her husband, and later her two sons. Ruth and Orpah were Naomi's daughters-in-law and they also lost their husbands, who were Naomi's sons. Since women during that time found it difficult to earn a living, and all of them were widows, they needed each other's support for survival.
Naomi told Ruth and Orpah to travel to Bethlehem to find work and to leave her in Moab. But Ruth refused to leave Naomi to starve, and held on to Naomi ("claved") while urging her to come along.
This simple act of "cleaving" in an emotional, non-sexual moment is deliberately misinterpreted to be the same as the marital sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve to promote the gay agenda.
The Hebrew word for cleave is "dâbaq" (to cling), used many times in the Old Testment primarily as a non-sexual verb: Deut. 10:20, 11:22, 13:4, 13:17, 28:21, 28:60, 30:20; Jos. 22:5, 23:8; 2 Sam. 20:2, 23:10; 2 Kings 3:3, 5:27, 18:6; Job 19:20, 29:10, 31:7, 38:38; Ps. 22:15, 44:25, 101:3, 102.5, 119:25, 137:6; Jer. 13:11; Lam. 4:4, and Ezek. 3:26.
In fact, dâbaq is often used in the Bible to refer to a tongue that is "stuck" or "cleaved" to the roof of someone's mouth, as in the expression "to hold your tongue," and it is also used as a command for Israelites to "cleave" with the Lord or "unite" with the Lord.
In 1 Chronicles 10:2, the word dâbaq is used to mean "to follow closely" or "to pursue closely" ---
1 Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. 2And the Philistines followed hard (dâbaq, Strong's No. 1692) after Saul, and after his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua, the sons of Saul.
Here, dâbaq means the Philistines were pursing Saul in battle. It definitely does not mean that the Philistines had a marital sexual relationship with Saul during a war battle.
Proof that it is not correct to assume that the word can only be used with a sexual meaning.
-
Proof that it is not correct to assume that the word can only be used with a sexual meaning.
By that same token, it's also not correct to assume that the word CAN'T be used as a sexual meaning. Just like the use of the word "pais" when talking about the person the Roman centurion begged Jesus to heal. That word was used as either "servant" or "gay lover" in certain languages.
The Bible has interpreted by a lot of people and they have lots of different interpretations of it. For me, how you interpret the Bible reflects on you as a person. People have used the Bible to justify their evil deeds from the Nazis to the KKK and they can cite Bible verse to you. The Bible has also been used by good people to inspire their heroic deeds like Martin Luther King Jr. So if you want the Bible to be anti-gay, then you yourself have that prejudice in you.
-
By that same token, it's also not correct to assume that the word CAN'T be used as a sexual meaning.
Of course it is correct to assume that the word could not have been used with a sexual meaning in Ruth 1:14 ---
11 And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
12 Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;
13 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me.
14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.
15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. (Ruth 1:11-15)
Following your argument, here's your absurd scenario:
Naomi wanted Ruth and Orpah to go to Bethlehem to find work and leave her in Moab, but Ruth refused and insisted that Naomi should go with them, so they were weeping with sadness. So what did Ruth do? She had sex with Naomi, just as Adam had sex with Eve.
The word can have a sexual meaning in verse 14? Your arguments are desperate.
Just like the use of the word "pais" when talking about the person the Roman centurion begged Jesus to heal. That word was used as either "servant" or "gay lover" in certain languages.
The Greek word "pais" means "child" or "youth." Depending on context, it can also mean a young servant. But it does not mean "gay lover."
See Strong's Number 3816: http://biblehub.com/greek/3816.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/3816.htm) - Used 24 times in the bible; in no instance used for "gay lover."
In what language does pais mean "gay lover"?
Bible study involves hard work and discipline. Don't think that merely parroting a gay activist's absurd interpretation makes you a bible expert.
-
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11755454_961233163947726_2507469009201153262_n.jpg?oh=80a63d891d159f6a883a10ddfb7bddb5&oe=561BEC99)
-
Like I always say, using the bible to prove that gay sex is ok will be an exercise in futility:
My advice to the LGBT rights activists ---- don't use the bible to prove your views, because you will not succeed.
==================================
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11755454_961233163947726_2507469009201153262_n.jpg?oh=80a63d891d159f6a883a10ddfb7bddb5&oe=561BEC99)
That's better.
Use bible quotes and you risk wasting your time.
Just settle for comedian quotes and you'll be fine... :D
-
As I said, the Bible has been translated hundreds of times for thousands of years and interpreted by a millions of people for millennia. It has been used to justify a lot of atrocities but at the same time inspire good works and heroic actions. Both the racist KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. both raised the Bible as their source of guidance and inspiration for their actions. In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.
-
As I said, the Bible has been translated hundreds of times for thousands of years and interpreted by a millions of people for millennia. It has been used to justify a lot of atrocities but at the same time inspire good works and heroic actions. Both the racist KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. both raised the Bible as their source of guidance and inspiration for their actions. In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.
Then why won't you defend the pro homosexuality quotations you cited from the Bible kung nakikita mo?
-
As I said, the Bible has been translated hundreds of times for thousands of years and interpreted by a millions of people for millennia. It has been used to justify a lot of atrocities but at the same time inspire good works and heroic actions. Both the racist KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. both raised the Bible as their source of guidance and inspiration for their actions. In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.
Teka.... let me get this clear. Kinukutya mo ang simbahan ng husto but then use the Bible as the source of your argument? Hindi ba magiging contradicting na yun argument mo? Papano na siya magiging credible?
-
In other words: Nasa tao ang interpretation ng Bibliya so kapag anti-gay ka, siyempre makikita mo anti-gay ang Bible, kapag pro-gay, makikita mo rin na pro-gay ang Bible.
No, wala sa tao ang interpretation ng bibliya. Scripture interprets itself. That is a very basic principle in exegesis.
You have already seen how I proved that your belief that Ruth had sex with Naomi is nonsensical. Still you are not satisfied.
E di ituloy pa natin.
Go ahead and cite another verse, and explain why it is pro gay sex. I will explain why it is not. Then let's see whose interpretation will stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
-
The Bible is very clear when it comes to homosexuality. It condemns homosexuality and gives hopes to all homosexuals.
Some twist the real message of the Bible to justify their wrongdoings just like what radical lgbt supporters did - twisting the real meaning to justify homosexuality.
-
Funny how Klaus would dig up some verses from the Bible in which he doesn't obviously believe in and even uses those verses to create maliciousness within.
Sorry to say this but to me, only idiots would do such.
-
Klaus is trolling his own thread.....
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10671363_10204065661113840_4390041651681433633_n.jpg?oh=af7ff1708bcda0f850bf03b5c03f1e50&oe=5647C73A&__gda__=1447975724_d7130898c5409c1208e20999205f97e4)
-
No, wala sa tao ang interpretation ng bibliya. Scripture interprets itself. That is a very basic principle in exegesis.
You have already seen how I proved that your belief that Ruth had sex with Naomi is nonsensical. Still you are not satisfied.
E di ituloy pa natin.
Go ahead and cite another verse, and explain why it is pro gay sex. I will explain why it is not. Then let's see whose interpretation will stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Puwede ko sigurong sabihin na ang "hindi" ay "oo" at ang "oo" ay hindi sa sinasabi ni Senor Klaus.
-
Tama iyan. Yun na nga ang sinasabi niya. Kahit ano daw interpretation mo, puwede.
Ang sinasabi ko naman, hindi totoo na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede.
Sa katunayan, nakakita na tayo ng halimbawa:
1. Sabi niya, sina Jonathan & David, at Naomi & Ruth, homosexual lovers. Napatunayan ko na walang sinasabi sa bibliya na homosexual lovers sila.
Kung totoo na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede, bakit hindi niya napatunayan na mali ang argumento ko?
2. Sabi niya, gay lovers ang centurion at ang kanyang male servant. Napatunayan ko na walang sinasabi sa bibliya na ganon.
Kung totoo na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede, bakit hindi niya napatunayan na may sinasabi sa bibliya na gay lovers sila?
Sabi pa niya, the Greek word "pais" was used as "gay lover" in certain languages.
Ang simpleng tanong ko:
In what language does pais mean "gay lover"?
Kahit anong interpretation puwede? E bakit simpleng tanong, hindi niya masagot?
=======================================
Madaling sabihin na kahit anong interpretation ay puwede.
Pero pag sinuyod ka na ng cross-examination, baka mamilipit ka sa kakaisip ng katuwiran. :D
=======================================
Sabi nang don't use the bible to prove your pro gay sex views. Ayaw maniwala, e... ;D
-
E bakit simpleng tanong, hindi niya masagot?
Kasi kapag barado na sya sa mga pointless arguments nya, iniiwasan nya sagutin.
Instead, he will create a new one and divert the topic there.
Troll nga etong si Klaus. Walang "b@y@g" para sagutin ng tama ang mga tanong sa kanya.
Sabi nang don't use the bible to prove your pro gay sex views. Ayaw maniwala, e... ;D
Yaan ang favorite nya. Gamitin ang Bible para sa mga maliciousness just to prove the "rights" kuno of the LGBT. As I mentioned in the other thread, I know and am friends with a lot of gay/lesbian people, and if majority of the people don't agree with them, just keep mum and keep it to themselves (their community) because they know that they are the minority and can not force the people, especially the straight ones to their beliefs. Lastly, I know a lot them believe in God and don't contradict to what is said in the Bible. They respect the Holy Book of Scriptures.
Di tulad nitong si Klaus, na binababoy yung paniniwala ng mga taong rumerespeto sa Bible.
-
ng Bible para sa mga maliciousness just to prove the "rights" kuno of the LGBT. As I mentioned in the other thread, I know and am friends with a lot of gay/lesbian people, and if majority of the people don't agree with them, just keep mum and keep it to themselves (their community) because they know that they are the minority and can not force the people, especially the straight ones to their beliefs.
So you're saying they should just keep quiet and give up? If minorities did that, the blacks in the U.S. wouldn't have civil rights, women wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, we'd still be a colony of Spain. Pero ganyan talaga ang Pinoy. Napaka-subservient sa mga may kapangyarihan at ng majority. Kahit na mali na sila, mas mabuti mag-tahimik na lang kayo imbis na guluhin pa ang status quo. Naku, masyadong nose bleed ang usapan na yan. Buti, wag na lang pag-usapan. Ayoko mag-isip o mag-question ng aking mga paniniwala.
Kaya hindi umuunlad ang Pinas. Not only about LGBT rights, mind you, but about listening to new, strange and weird ideas. We shut down anyone who dares think differently, who dares question what we're used to, etc. If we foster that kind of conformist, defeatist, anti-intellectual and frankly, BIGOTED attitude, we won't progress as a nation.
-
So you're saying they should just keep quiet and give up? If minorities did that, the blacks in the U.S. wouldn't have civil rights, women wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, we'd still be a colony of Spain. Pero ganyan talaga ang Pinoy. Napaka-subservient sa mga may kapangyarihan at ng majority. Kahit na mali na sila, mas mabuti mag-tahimik na lang kayo imbis na guluhin pa ang status quo. Naku, masyadong nose bleed ang usapan na yan. Buti, wag na lang pag-usapan. Ayoko mag-isip o mag-question ng aking mga paniniwala.
Kaya hindi umuunlad ang Pinas. Not only about LGBT rights, mind you, but about listening to new, strange and weird ideas. We shut down anyone who dares think differently, who dares question what we're used to, etc. If we foster that kind of conformist, defeatist, anti-intellectual and frankly, BIGOTED attitude, we won't progress as a nation.
In the first place, are you (the LGBT) are being oppressed? What nose bleed are you referring to? You think we don't understand sh!t about your pointless concerns? Who are you calling conformist, defeatist, anti-intellectual and a bigoted attitude? Me, us who don't agree with your idiotic non-sense?
The right(s) you're trying to point to us is(are) useless and is very much different from what you compared again. Such a stupid comparison. Comparing this issue with the rights of the blacks, women, etc. to LGBT. Why the hell would we stand up for what we think isn't right for us that YOU, are trying to force us to accept it.
You Klaus, is a big joke. Stop fooling yourself and trolling us here. Now, I'm going to stop feeding you.
-
Blacks and women are person/people... Homosexuality is not a person its a lifestyle/practice. Ang layo ng comparison. :-D:-D
Palibhasa sa mga komedyante naniniwala di na madifferentiate kaibahan between person and lifestyles. Tsk. "movie pa more"...
-
Klaus started an LGBT thread in the Big talk section. Then when people told him not to include religion in the issue, he then created a new one in the Religion section which has nothing to do with the LGBT. But he insists that religion is part of the LGBT and that religion condones homosexuality.
Masyadong kulang sa pansin itong tao na ito. Obviously, ayaw nga ng mga tao isali ang religion sa issue na ito pero may problema sa pag iisip si Klaus at gumawa pa ng isa para tirahin at i-disrespect ang karamihan dito.
By the way, the LGBT thread doesn't even deserve to be in the Big Talk section. As if the entire pdvd community needs to discuss about it.
Hello Klaus??? Nakakaintindi ka ba?
-
lgbt religion version thread tapos may black, women, civil rights, etc na nasama na naman... LOL di mapakali sa isang bagay eh...
-
pinapatulan pa kasi,next time mag post wag na kayo mag reply.kasi pag nag reply kayo at wala syang maisagot gagawa na naman sya ng ibang istorya.tingin ko minsan wala lang talaga sya magawa kaya ine entertain nya sarili nya by starting some sort of argument.tuwang tuwa naman sya pag may naaasar syang tao.yung iba affected na talaga e,samanatalang sya parang katuwaan lang lahat ng ito.i dont know why some people take him seriously e sya naman nagsabi na di sya bading.so ang purpose lang talaga nya e mang inis
-
pinapatulan pa kasi,next time mag post wag na kayo mag reply.kasi pag nag reply kayo at wala syang maisagot gagawa na naman sya ng ibang istorya.tingin ko minsan wala lang talaga sya magawa kaya ine entertain nya sarili nya by starting some sort of argument.tuwang tuwa naman sya pag may naaasar syang tao.yung iba affected na talaga e,samanatalang sya parang katuwaan lang lahat ng ito.i dont know why some people take him seriously e sya naman nagsabi na di sya bading.so ang purpose lang talaga nya e mang inis
once na umamin kasi... wala na agad ang theory niya na homosexuality is not a choice :):):)
-
I think you are all missing the point of this thread, which is to discuss if religion has anything to do with LGBT discrimination. Apparently, based on the responses here, there is. Instead looking at it from the outside, you all chose to defend your beliefs from the inside. It would also be great if you won't just defend, ala Mayweather. Why not be on the offensive for once, state your religion's view on homosexuality and then discuss?
The name calling isn't helping your cause, whatever that might be. I also think the "Eli Soriano"-esque style of debate is really getting annoying.
And yes, the analogy on blacks, women and slavery works for me.
-
So you're saying they should just keep quiet and give up? If minorities did that, the blacks in the U.S. wouldn't have civil rights, women wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, we'd still be a colony of Spain. Pero ganyan talaga ang Pinoy. Napaka-subservient sa mga may kapangyarihan at ng majority. Kahit na mali na sila, mas mabuti mag-tahimik na lang kayo imbis na guluhin pa ang status quo. Naku, masyadong nose bleed ang usapan na yan. Buti, wag na lang pag-usapan. Ayoko mag-isip o mag-question ng aking mga paniniwala.
Kaya hindi umuunlad ang Pinas. Not only about LGBT rights, mind you, but about listening to new, strange and weird ideas. We shut down anyone who dares think differently, who dares question what we're used to, etc. If we foster that kind of conformist, defeatist, anti-intellectual and frankly, BIGOTED attitude, we won't progress as a nation.
but, but, this is hardly the place....
go elect your LGBT solons, LGBT president, town mayors, governors, IOW, politicians...
and then you will get somewhere....
over here you are merely trolling....
BTW, i nominate Vice Ganda for president....
she speaks more sense than most politicians i know...')
-
I just watched a video from Russia where the gays there are openly mocked, ridiculed and physically abused by a certain gang. Reporting the incidents to their authorities proved futile. Tsk tsk tsk. I also remembered that in Russia, during the early 1900s, Christianity and other religions were being targeted by authorities. The government I think, during those times, does not want any religion to dominate their country.
-
I also think the "Eli Soriano"-esque style of debate is really getting annoying.
That's understandable.
Kung ako yung hindi makasagot ng simpleng tanong, mayayamot din ako... :D
-
That's understandable.
Kung ako yung hindi makasagot ng simpleng tanong, mayayamot din ako... :D
or magpost na lang ng qoutes ng mga comedian :D
-
or magpost na lang ng qoutes ng mga comedian :D
So what's your religion's take?
-
So what's your religion's take?
Post/Reply #1 (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,201152.msg2286884.html#msg2286884)
-
@bumblebee,
There is no point at all to this thread at all except to add more posts for the threadstarter .... and trolling.
And, you ... are you by chance a supporter of trolls?
-
Anong punto magsimula ng isang talakayan pero kapag tinanong mo nililihis ang sagot.
-
Post/Reply #1 (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,201152.msg2286884.html#msg2286884)
So for you, it is a choice. Did you choose to be male? Can you choose to be gay, meaning you can be pleasured by men?
-
So for you, it is a choice. Did you choose to be male? Can you choose to be gay, meaning you can be pleasured by men?
Countless times na nasagot ni dpogs yan.
-
Countless times na nasagot ni dpogs yan.
Hindi ko na maalalala e. Ano raw?
-
Hindi ko na maalalala e. Ano raw?
Some of his replies from about at least a dozen of it...
so homosexuality (i mean an act of it) is always a choice.
naman... ever since galit naman talga ako sa homosexuality (not gays - but the act of it)
-
Thanks, but I'd like him to answer the questions directly to the point.
-
Blacks and women are person/people... Homosexuality is not a person its a lifestyle/practice. Ang layo ng comparison. :-D:-D
If homosexuality is a lifestyle/practice, you know what else is a lifestyle/practice? RELIGION. Ibig sabihin ba nun okay lang sa iyo ang i-discriminate kita dahil sa relihiyon mo? Okay lang sa iyo ang pagtawanan kita, i-bully kita, ipapabugbog kita, pagbawalan kita magpakasal sa minamahal mo dahil iba ang relihiyon mo sa akin? Sinful ka sa religion ko, bakit kita irerespeto?
Kung ayaw mo ng tinetrato ka ng ganito, ba't hindi ka na lang mag-agree sa religion ko? DI BA LIFESTYLE CHOICE DIN ANG RELIGION?!? I would argue it's far more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality. Your sexual orientation is innate and not a choice. You can switch religions without killing yourself. Wala among narinig na kaso na nagpakamatay dahil pinilit niyang maging Kristyano pero hindi niya kaya.
-
Bigotymology: What It Really Means to Be a Bigot. (http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/05/16/bigotymology-what-it-really-means-to-be-a-bigot-like-sotto-pacquiao-and-the-cbcp/?utm_content=bufferf1ee5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
A bigot is credulous: he believes things strongly, even superstition, to the point of self-deception because he takes things on faith.
A bigot is certain: he believes with such sureness the infallibility of his chosen authority to the point of dogmatism and fanaticism.
A bigot is obstinate: he believes even in the face of contradictory facts because he is married to his opinion and bound by his creed.
To a bigot, it’s not the opinion itself that has power; it’s the authority figure from whom the bigot received the opinion. Whether you believe by authority — especially religious ones — is ultimately what determines whether a believer is a bigot.
-
If homosexuality is a lifestyle/practice, you know what else is a lifestyle/practice? RELIGION. Ibig sabihin ba nun okay lang sa iyo ang i-discriminate kita dahil sa relihiyon mo? Okay lang sa iyo ang pagtawanan kita, i-bully kita, ipapabugbog kita, pagbawalan kita magpakasal sa minamahal mo dahil iba ang relihiyon mo sa akin? Sinful ka sa religion ko, bakit kita irerespeto?
Kung ayaw mo ng tinetrato ka ng ganito, ba't hindi ka na lang mag-agree sa religion ko? DI BA LIFESTYLE CHOICE DIN ANG RELIGION?!? I would argue it's far more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality. Your sexual orientation is innate and not a choice. You can switch religions without killing yourself. Wala among narinig na kaso na nagpakamatay dahil pinilit niyang maging Kristyano pero hindi niya kaya.
Fashionista ka pala ... lifestyle na pala ang relihiyon ... akala ko ba eh nag-aral ka sa Katolikong eskwelahan ... hindi gawa ng tao ang pinaiiral kung hindi ang gusto ng panginoon na ganapin natin. Daming masama sa mundo hindi lang Katoliko. Gawin mo rin halimbawa ibang mga tao. Mismo iyung sarili nilang paniniwala binabalewala at pinagpapalit palit para lang "in" sila.
-
Thanks, but I'd like him to answer the questions directly to the point.
please back read in this thread and on the other thread :)
There is nothing wrong being heterosexual or being homosexual.
The Bible says we need to love one another but it doesn't says that we need to have sex with one another because the Bible condemns same sex intercourse (homosexuality) and adultery.
The Bible gives hopes to all hetero or homosexual but condemns sins and same sex intercourse (homosexuality).
we dont have a choice if male or female tayo ipinanganak... but we have a choice to practice sex or to have a relationship.
matagal na naming hinahantay na patunayan ng mga radical lgbt supporter ang ni-claim nila na sang-ayon ang Bible sa idea ng homosexuality or same sex intercourse... so far wala pang matinong paliwanag o kasagutan... qoute lang ng comedian nabasa namin, civil rights at saka definition ng bigot :(:(:(
-
...
we dont have a choice if male or female tayo ipinanganak... but we have a choice to practice sex or to have a relationship.
Tama. But you are confusing homosexual acts with being homosexual. Ang itinatanong ko ay mapipili mo ba yung pagiging homosexual? Kaya mo bang piliing magkagusto o ma-attract sa kapwa mo lalaki?
matagal na naming hinahantay na patunayan ng mga radical lgbt supporter ang ni-claim nila na sang-ayon ang Bible sa idea ng homosexuality or same sex intercourse... so far wala pang matinong paliwanag o kasagutan... qoute lang ng comedian nabasa namin, civil rights at saka definition ng bigot :(:(:(
Klaus is using quotes from the Bible to counter your arguments. He's trying to show you how the Bible can be subject to interpretation, as if the sheer number of Christian religion is not enough to prove that. And so far rin, all you do is tell him he's wrong by dissecting his arguments, but you stop there. Why don't you point him to verses he can read to support your belief? Baka magpasalamat pa sa'yo yan.
-
Tama. But you are confusing homosexual acts with being homosexual. Ang itinatanong ko ay mapipili mo ba yung pagiging homosexual? Kaya mo bang piliing magkagusto o ma-attract sa kapwa mo lalaki?
attraction to opposite sex, same sex, minor, inanimate object, AI, animals... we all have a desire... now whether those desire are choice or not... lets talk about that sa kabialgn thread...
im not confuse kaya ko nga nasabi na ang homosexuality is a choice because it is an act... kung nagbabasa ka sana ng mga post ko whehter being homosexual a choice or not... just read my post sa other thread kung ang pagiging homosexual ba ay choice or not... but under this thread all i can say is homosexuality is a choice... having sex with opposite or same gender is always a choice... having a relationship with oppoiste or same gender is always a choice...
Klaus is using quotes from the Bible to counter your arguments. He's trying to show you how the Bible can be subject to interpretation, as if the sheer number of Christian religion is not enough to prove that. And so far rin, all you do is tell him he's wrong by dissecting his arguments, but you stop there. Why don't you point him to verses he can read to support your belief? Baka magpasalamat pa sa'yo yan.
and barrister shows how ridicoluis is Klaus' interpreation of those verses... and we're waiting on his reply pero qoute nga lang ng comedian ang nabasa namin saka definition ng bigot :(:(:(
same sex intercourse is prohibited in the Bible:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:26-27)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (I Cor. 6:9)\
now... how about you.... what's your religion (if meron man) says about homosexuality?
-
same sex intercourse is prohibited in the Bible:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:26-27)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (I Cor. 6:9)\
now... how about you.... what's your religion (if meron man) says about homosexuality?
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Bawal pala maging boss ng lalake ang babae. Nasa impyerno na ata si Cory.
"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." - Titus 2:9-10
Okay lang pala magkaroon ng slaves.
"“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. ..." - Leviticus 15:19-30
Naku. Kapag may nakita kang babaeng bumibili ng sanitary napkin, mga unclean ang mga yan!
-
Bakit tayo napunta sa hetero marriage, slavery and menstruation?
Iniiwasan mo ang homosexuality verses para hindi mahalatang hindi mo kayang sagutin? :D
-
I think it is easier to switch over to a religion that accepts you for how God made you.
-
Why would you even need a religion? Just be an atheist and get it over with.
My problem is about people who think they can prove that the bible is ok with gay sex acts.
Now if they just say they don't believe in the bible, then that's fine with me.
-
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Bawal pala maging boss ng lalake ang babae. Nasa impyerno na ata si Cory.
"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." - Titus 2:9-10
Okay lang pala magkaroon ng slaves.
"“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. ..." - Leviticus 15:19-30
Naku. Kapag may nakita kang babaeng bumibili ng sanitary napkin, mga unclean ang mga yan!
Slavery is not specifically condemns in the Bible... But those who experience freedom throuigh Christ must be the first one to know that slavery must end. :-)
Wala naman sinabi sa Bible na kapag naging leader ang babae ay mapupunta siya sa hell... Meron ba?
Anyway...
Slavery and church leaderahip is another topic...
Show to us a Bible verse that approves same sex intercourse/relationship.
-
Bakit tayo napunta sa hetero marriage, slavery and menstruation?
Iniiwasan mo ang homosexuality verses para hindi mahalatang hindi mo kayang sagutin? :D
+1
-
Bakit tayo napunta sa hetero marriage, slavery and menstruation?
Iniiwasan mo ang homosexuality verses para hindi mahalatang hindi mo kayang sagutin? :D
No. I'm just making a point. You point out verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, at least in your interpretation of it. But there are lots of verses in the Bible that condemn things like women's rights, working on a Sabbath, eating pork, etc.
Again, lots of verses in the Bible that is subject to interpretation depending on the translation and the prejudices of the persons doing the interpretation. This has been the case ever since a group of men (who have their own prejudices and beliefs) about a thousand or so years ago got together and decided which books to include in the Bible and since then has been subjected to interpretation and translations by millions of people for centuries.
If the Bible can be CORRECTLY and OBJECTIVELY interpreted, eh di, iisang relihiyon tayo ngayon kasi malinaw at walang pagtataluhan ng interpretation. Eh, hindi eh. Ang dami tayong relihiyon at denomination ng Christianity na kani-kanila ang interpretation ng Bible. How can you say that your interpretation is correct?
The truth is: Lahat tayo may sariling interpretation sa Bibliya. Lahat tayo namimili kung ano ang susundin at hindi susundin (pupunta ba kayo sa bahay ni Erap para ma-stone niyo siya to death?). We bring our own prejudices into our reading of the Bible. That's why both the KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. have read the Bible and found verses supporting/inspiring their cause.
I know people who are Biblical scholars, who studied the Bible front and back and read various translations and interpretations over the years as well as researching about the historical background of the Bible and a few of them have turned atheist because of that.
-
attraction to opposite sex, same sex, minor, inanimate object, AI, animals... we all have a desire... now whether those desire are choice or not... lets talk about that sa kabialgn thread...
im not confuse kaya ko nga nasabi na ang homosexuality is a choice because it is an act... kung nagbabasa ka sana ng mga post ko whehter being homosexual a choice or not... just read my post sa other thread kung ang pagiging homosexual ba ay choice or not... but under this thread all i can say is homosexuality is a choice... having sex with opposite or same gender is always a choice... having a relationship with oppoiste or same gender is always a choice...
and barrister shows how ridicoluis is Klaus' interpreation of those verses... and we're waiting on his reply pero qoute nga lang ng comedian ang nabasa namin saka definition ng bigot :(:(:(
same sex intercourse is prohibited in the Bible:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:26-27)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, (I Cor. 6:9)\
now... how about you.... what's your religion (if meron man) says about homosexuality?
Forgive the short reply, I'm using a mobile device. I'm a semi practicing catholic, if there's such a thing.
Please clarify, are you saying having desires apart from the opposite sex is natural and is ok as long as you don't act on it?
-
Why would you even need a religion? Just be an atheist and get it over with.
My problem is about people who think they can prove that the bible is ok with gay sex acts.
Now if they just say they don't believe in the bible, then that's fine with me.
TBH, I'm fairly indifferent in what the Bible says. In fact, I started questioning the whole concept of organized religion when I started actually reading the Bible from beginning to end.
My point in disputing and re-interpreting it is for the benefit of people who put a lot of stock in it and points to it as the reason they are against gay rights, same sex marriage, homosexuality, etc.
-
No. I'm just making a point. You point out verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, at least in your interpretation of it. But there are lots of verses in the Bible that condemn things like women's rights, working on a Sabbath, eating pork, etc.
Again, lots of verses in the Bible that is subject to interpretation depending on the translation and the prejudices of the persons doing the interpretation. This has been the case ever since a group of men (who have their own prejudices and beliefs) about a thousand or so years ago got together and decided which books to include in the Bible and since then has been subjected to interpretation and translations by millions of people for centuries.
If the Bible can be CORRECTLY and OBJECTIVELY interpreted, eh di, iisang relihiyon tayo ngayon kasi malinaw at walang pagtataluhan ng interpretation. Eh, hindi eh. Ang dami tayong relihiyon at denomination ng Christianity na kani-kanila ang interpretation ng Bible. How can you say that your interpretation is correct?
The truth is: Lahat tayo may sariling interpretation sa Bibliya. Lahat tayo namimili kung ano ang susundin at hindi susundin (pupunta ba kayo sa bahay ni Erap para ma-stone niyo siya to death?). We bring our own prejudices into our reading of the Bible. That's why both the KKK and Martin Luther King Jr. have read the Bible and found verses supporting/inspiring their cause.
I know people who are Biblical scholars, who studied the Bible front and back and read various translations and interpretations over the years as well as researching about the historical background of the Bible and a few of them have turned atheist because of that.
You make logical points. So I gather by mentioning slavery, menstruation, stoning, etc....you are implying that like those you have mentioned, the Bible forbidding homosexuality is no longer practical in today's times. That is your interpretation. But does the Bible say implicitly that it promotes homosexuality? I think yun naman ang purpose ng thread right?
Why not mention verses that in your interpretation promotes homosexuality? Just because you think one thing is no longer practical today merits another with the same conviction. Make a case specifically dapat that the Bible supports homosexuality by citing verses.
-
Forgive the short reply, I'm using a mobile device. I'm a semi practicing catholic, if there's such a thing.
Please clarify, are you saying having desires apart from the opposite sex is natural and is ok as long as you don't act on it?
Hmmm papaano ko ba sasabihin... Each of us have desires whatever it is... We have both good desires and bad desires... Para sa akin desires palang namanyan eh... We still have a choicewhether to act on it or not.. Your having sexual desire to your neighbours wife that is bad desire but youre not commiting any sins unless you act on it - you fantasize about her you masturbate, kapag dumadaan nakakadalawang lingon ka lagi and then un pangalawang lingon at titig takes longer... It is bad desires because the bible never approves adultery. Same to homosexuality.
-
Your having sexual desire to your neighbours wife that is bad desire but youre not commiting any sins unless you act on it - you fantasize about her you masturbate, kapag dumadaan nakakadalawang lingon ka lagi and then un pangalawang lingon at titig takes longer... It is bad desires because the bible never approves adultery. Same to homosexuality.
Remove the Bible and religious objections. Anong masama sa homosexuality? In adultery, you lie and betray your spouse and the spouse of the person you're committing adultery with. You hurt them in the process. But two consenting adults na single na walang sinasaktan na same-sex, anong masama doon? Wala akong nakikita.
-
Remove the Bible and religious objections. Anong masama sa homosexuality? In adultery, you lie and betray your spouse and the spouse of the person you're committing adultery with. You hurt them in the process. But two consenting adults na single na walang sinasaktan na same-sex, anong masama doon? Wala akong nakikita.
Lipat mo sa Big Talk Klaus. You started the thread sa Religion section. Hindi pwede remove the Bible and religious objections. You're violating your own thread.
-
Sir Klaus, it's not that easy to drag me into a new topic that you prefer.
No. I'm just making a point. You point out verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, at least in your interpretation of it. But there are lots of verses in the Bible that condemn things like women's rights, working on a Sabbath, eating pork, etc.
So you've made your point. Now, back to the homosexual verses. :D
Kaya mo bang sagutin o hindi?
Kasi pag sinabi mong hindi, e di tapos na tayo.
Pero pag sinabi mong oo, e di magandang diskusyon ito... ;)
=====================================
TBH, I'm fairly indifferent in what the Bible says. In fact, I started questioning the whole concept of organized religion when I started actually reading the Bible from beginning to end.
My point in disputing and re-interpreting it is for the benefit of people who put a lot of stock in it and points to it as the reason they are against gay rights, same sex marriage, homosexuality, etc.
No, your objective was to show that all bible-believers are stupid, ignorant hicks who would not be able to answer when challenged.
We've clearly seen where that mindset got you... ;)
==================================
Remove the Bible and religious objections. Anong masama sa homosexuality?
You start a religious thread and now you don't want to discuss religion?
I knew you would give up, but I didn't expect you to give up so soon... :D
-
Remove the Bible and religious objections. Anong masama sa homosexuality? In adultery, you lie and betray your spouse and the spouse of the person you're committing adultery with. You hurt them in the process. But two consenting adults na single na walang sinasaktan na same-sex, anong masama doon? Wala akong nakikita.
Err :o nagpost lang ako sa ginawa mong thread na LGBT Issues - Religious Version... tapos sasabihin mo sa akin remove the Bible and religious objections... :):):):)
-
Hmmm papaano ko ba sasabihin... Each of us have desires whatever it is... We have both good desires and bad desires... Para sa akin desires palang namanyan eh... We still have a choicewhether to act on it or not.. Your having sexual desire to your neighbours wife that is bad desire but youre not commiting any sins unless you act on it - you fantasize about her you masturbate, kapag dumadaan nakakadalawang lingon ka lagi and then un pangalawang lingon at titig takes longer... It is bad desires because the bible never approves adultery. Same to homosexuality.
Ok, so based on your beliefs, it is normal to have desires, meron lang category na good or bad. Some questions, why is desire for the same sex bad? I know you pointed to verses that prohibits it. But why? Second, since having desires is natural, you're saying this is something you can't "cure"?
-
Ok, so based on your beliefs, it is normal to have desires, meron lang category na good or bad. Some questions, why is desire for the same sex bad? I know you pointed to verses that prohibits it. But why? Second, since having desires is natural, you're saying this is something you can't "cure"?
Ok, so based on your beliefs, it is normal to have desires, meron lang category na good or bad.
YES.
we all have desires good or bad... in fact we are all born with a corruptible body... we all have a tendency (desire) to commit sin... no one teaches us to be bad or gumawa ng kasalanan pero maari tayong maimpluwensiyahan o mamulat sa ginagawa natin na akala ay tama pero kasalanan pala... same for homosexuality...
Some questions, why is desire for the same sex bad?
the Bible describes homosexuality as sinful (even if it doesnt hurt someone) - desire for same sex
the Bible describes looking to a woman lustfully as sinful (even if it doesnt hurt someone) - desire for opposite sex
the Bible describes murder as sinful - desire to kill
the Bible describes gluttony as sinful - desire to eat more food
I know you pointed to verses that prohibits it. But why?
i believe the Word of God as the final authority when it comes to my faith and way of life.
Second, since having desires is natural, you're saying this is something you can't "cure"?
yes having desires is natural... having a desire for sexual intercourse is natural.... but... but having a desire for same sex intercourse is unnatural according to the Bible.
pero take note hindi sinasabi sa Bible na if someting is unnatural it is automatically a sin. the bible says homosexuality is a sin (period), also the Bible describes homosexuality as unnatural. wala tayong mababasa na ganito "homosexuality is a sin because it is unnatural". <Male and Female were created to connect with one another in a particular way - qouted>.
If God approves male-to-male sex He could have made our anus to produce natural lubricants :):). But no, God made our anus with enough sensors (sensitive enough) to detect and control our bowel movement. kasi kung walang pakiramdam yang anus natin eh di mo mamalayan na tumatae ka na pala. saka wala nag gustong tumae kasi hindi na tayo makakasigaw ng "success" after natin tumae. kaya kalokohan yang sinasabi na bakit ginawa ng Diyos na sensitive ang anus. <The fact that there are nerve endings there has nothing to do with anal sex, but with defecation. Defecation is usually pleasurable; we're all familiar with the sense of relief after relieving ourselves. - qouted>
... you're saying this is something you can't "cure"?
nope... it is something that we can "overcome"
secular - it is some sort of will over body, will over desire
spiritual - I believe maari nating tanggihan o maovercome ang anumang masasamang desires (including homosexuality) only by the grace of God.
-
^I mean why is homosexuality a sin? Did the Bible say?
Also, I thought you said having desires is natural. How come having desire for the opposite sex is unnatural now? Naguluhan ako.
-
afaik, being pabakla sa kilos is not.....it is when a man sleeps and have sex with another man that is...
-
^I mean why is homosexuality a sin? Did the Bible say?
Also, I thought you said having desires is natural. How come having desire for the opposite sex is unnatural now? Naguluhan ako.
a man having two hands is natural but but if its both left then it is unnatural. a man having sexual desire is natural but a man having a sexual desire for man is unnatural.
-
^So hindi nga natural. Akala ko ba you have no problems with homosexuals? Only the act?
-
^So hindi nga natural. Akala ko ba you have no problems with homosexuals? Only the act?
yeah... i have no problems with homosexuals... i have problem with homosexuality... the Bible teach to love one another (pero wlang sinasabi ang Bible na to have sex with one another).
kapag sinabi ko bang hindi natural na isa lang ang kamay ngmother ko eh may problema na ako sa mther ko? porket sinabi ko na hindi natural ang homosexualty eh assume mo na agad na may problema ako sa isang homosexual?
homosexual can buy any product from my business. they can use any service i offer. they can enter into my house, they can go to church... but if they request to include me and my business in their homosexualities then i wont accept or grant their request, if they will use my house for homosexuality then i wont allow them inside my house.
the same for catholics... any catholics can buy any products, use any service i offer... but if they want to use any of my properties for their cahtolic activities then i refuse and i dont want to be part of that activitites... using my car for procession, using my lot for a catholic mass, using my house for nobena - NO.
-
So you're merely tolerating them, pro deep inside, they have a problem?
-
not for us people to judge, it is between the homosexual and his God....
-
So you're merely tolerating them, pro deep inside, they have a problem?
lahat tayo may problema na dinadala... parepareho tayo pagdating sa ganoong level...
sa mga kinikilos ng trangender na malambot malambing na galaw i can tolerate them...
sa mga kilos na malababae o malalalake ayos lang yan... i can tolerate that action...
sa mga homosexuals... i really dont have any idea kung kung paano malalaman ang isang homosexual sa office, sa bahay, kapitbahay namin malalaman ko lang kong naging open sila sa pagiging homosexual nila ior sabihin nila...ni hindi ako mag aassume na ang dalawang lalaki na laging magkasama ay homosexual unless sabihin nila sa iyo ng harapan... wala naman nagbago love, treat, talk to them as usual kung ano dapat ginagawa ng isang tao... wala man magbabago... but i cannot tolerate homosexuality how i can tolerate particular activity if its considered a sin...
if i tolerate homosexuality then i must tolerate lustful thinking too. or killing.. this is not about "person" this is about "activity/practice"...
kung sinabi lang sana ng Bible that we need to tolerate homosexuality then i will tolerate homosexuality... one is clear though - the Bible said that we need to love one another including homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc - note: how can we love a person if we're allowing them to continue doing what we know is wrong. :):):)
so @bumblebee... bilang isang catholic how do you view homosexuality? ano ginamit mong takalan to have that view?
-
Thanks, for the lengthy explanation. I take that as a yes? Yes?
I was born Catholic. Like I said, I'm a semi-practicing Catholic. I go to Church, I pray. That's it. My view on homosexuality does not depend on my "being" a Catholic. I also don't think something is wrong with being a homosexual.
-
Thanks, for the lengthy explanation. I take that as a yes? Yes?
I was born Catholic. Like I said, I'm a semi-practicing Catholic. I go to Church, I pray. That's it. My view on homosexuality does not depend on my "being" a Catholic. I also don't think something is wrong with being a homosexual.
And what's your view re homosexual acts like same sex intercourse? :D
-
Yup there isn nothing wrong being homosexual but it is unnatural.
How about your view om homosexuality/ssm/same gender sex? Religioiu view.
-
And what's your view re homosexual acts like same sex intercourse? :D
It's their business :) Most men like g2g actions, right? How come it's ok and m2m isn't?
-
Yup there isn nothing wrong being homosexual but it is unnatural.
So which is worse, wrong or unnatural?
How about your view om homosexuality/ssm/same gender sex? Religioiu view.
Just answered.
-
It's their business :) Most men like g2g actions, right? How come it's ok and m2m isn't?
When you say g2g action... are these females lesbians or heterosexual females experimenting or for porn?
-
When you say g2g action... are these females lesbians or heterosexual females experimenting or for porn?
Does it matter?
-
Does it matter?
To get a better perspective. So yes it does.
-
Any of the two.
-
Any of the two.
So you are saying most men like lesbian action? :)
-
So you are saying most men like lesbian action? :)
Yeah. Lalo na yung mga "tunay" na lalaki kuno :)
-
Yeah. Lalo na yung mga "tunay" na lalaki kuno :)
I really don't know any heterosexual male na ok sa kanila yun lesbian action. But maybe meron dito sa pdvd na gusto If most men really are into that sort of thing.
-
It's their business :) Most men like g2g actions, right? How come it's ok and m2m isn't?
just to confirm this is your instance in respect of your religious belief? as long as its not your business it is not wrong?
So which is worse, wrong or unnatural?
worse... well of course = homosexuality, it is wrong and is unnatural according to the Bible
-
just to confirm this is your instance in respect of your religious belief? as long as its not your business it is not wrong?
My take on this does depend on my religion nga e. Semi-practicing nga.
worse... well of course = homosexuality, it is wrong and is unnatural according to the Bible
Sabi mo kanina nothing's wrong. Only unnatural. Ano ba talaga?
-
I really don't know any heterosexual male na ok sa kanila yun lesbian action. But maybe meron dito sa pdvd na gusto If most men really are into that sort of thing.
Well, you're in for a surprise.
-
My take on this does depend on my religion nga e. Semi-practicing nga.
Sabi mo kanina nothing's wrong. Only unnatural. Ano ba talaga?
Ahhh okay as long as it is not your problem then it is right. Okay.
If you're homosexual then there is nothing wrong and it is unnatural.
Practicing homosexuality or same gender sex is wrong and it is unnatural.
-
I really don't know any heterosexual male na ok sa kanila yun lesbian action.
LOL
-
LOL
Hahaha! Ok sayo yun? :)
-
worse... well of course = homosexuality, it is wrong and is unnatural according to the Bible
Wearing a cotton shirt and denim jeans is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Eating shrimp is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Working on the Sabbath is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Maraming "wrong" and "unnatural" according to the Bible.
If God approves male-to-male sex He could have made our anus to produce natural lubricants
Heterosexual couples have anal sex too, y'know. A lot of people find it pleasurable to have sex back there even a lot of women. Among men, that's also where the prostate gland is located and it's said very pleasurable when you stimulate it. So pleasurable, in fact, some STRAIGHT men like to stick their fingers or use dildos up there. Why did God make it like that if He didn't approve?
Sorry to get graphic but you were asking for it. (So to speak. ;D ;D ;D)
-
Wearing a cotton shirt and denim jeans is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Eating shrimp is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Working on the Sabbath is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Maraming "wrong" and "unnatural" according to the Bible.
Sabi ko nga... pointing out certain instances from the Bible that are considered impractical today doesn't merit the same conviction regarding homosexuality. Hindi siya automatic. If you want to make a credible and convincing case, cite verses from the Bible that support homosexuality.
-
I agree with Desmond Tutu
(http://www.tldm.org/News21/DesmondTutu.jpg)
-
If you want to make a credible and convincing case, cite verses from the Bible that support homosexuality.
I've already cited three instances: David & Jonathan, Ruth & Naomi and Jesus healing the Roman centurion's "servant" (which some people theorize was the Roman centurion's teenage boy lover which was a common practice among Roman centurions).
barrister disputed all three, saying I wasn't reading the Scriptures correctly.
However, I countered that the Bible has been translated and interpreted numerous times by millions, billions of people over thousands of years and a lot of it is very subjective. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having so many different religions and denominations. It's also the reason why various groups of people with conflicting ideologies would both hold the Bible up as their basis for their two different opposing beliefs (the KKK and MLK Jr. for instance).
And yet he thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is correct.
-
I've already cited three instances: David & Jonathan, Ruth & Naomi and Jesus healing the Roman centurion's "servant" (which some people theorize was the Roman centurion's teenage boy lover which was a common practice among Roman centurions).
barrister disputed all three, saying I wasn't reading the Scriptures correctly.
However, I countered that the Bible has been translated and interpreted numerous times by millions, billions of people over thousands of years and a lot of it is very subjective. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having so many different religions and denominations. It's also the reason why various groups of people with conflicting ideologies would both hold the Bible up as their basis for their two different opposing beliefs (the KKK and MLK Jr. for instance).
And yet he thinks *his* interpretation of the Bible is correct.
Yes I acknowledge that you did cite 3 instances. Baka lang meron pang iba...yun bago. Baka mas irrefutable yun iba pa.
-
Wearing a cotton shirt and denim jeans is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Eating shrimp is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Working on the Sabbath is wrong and unnatural according to the Bible.
Maraming "wrong" and "unnatural" according to the Bible.
Heterosexual couples have anal sex too, y'know. A lot of people find it pleasurable to have sex back there even a lot of women. Among men, that's also where the prostate gland is located and it's said very pleasurable when you stimulate it. So pleasurable, in fact, some STRAIGHT men like to stick their fingers or use dildos up there. Why did God make it like that if He didn't approve?
Sorry to get graphic but you were asking for it. (So to speak. ;D ;D ;D)
Why God make anus with many nerve ending? For decafication (period). Kung walang nerve endings yan di mo namamalayan na nagtatae ka na pala at malamang lamang di ka matutuwang magtae.
Regarding food to eat, Jesus said it is not that goes in to your mouth that matters but what goes out. Jesus said that it is okay to eat any food.
Sabbath day, Jesus said the sabbath day was made for man. God did not create man for sabbath. Jesus allowed his disciple to eat, work during sabath day.
And if you cite some law in the old testament be sure to know what kind of law is that:
Civil law - for israel only
Ceremonial law - not applicable today
Moral law - still applicable today including homosexuality, murder, idolatry, adultery etc.
-
Wala akong nabasang cotton shirt and jeans sa bible. Uso na pala dati yun?
-
Wala akong nabasang cotton shirt and jeans sa bible. Uso na pala dati yun?
The Bible explicitly says can't wear clothes with two different fabrics. That means if you wear a cotton shirt and denim pants, you are committing a sin.
-
The Bible explicitly says can't wear clothes with two different fabrics. That means if you wear a cotton shirt and denim pants, you are committing a sin.
Well could you site the verse kung totoong meron? Unless hearsay na naman yan.
-
The Bible explicitly says can't wear clothes with two different fabrics. That means if you wear a cotton shirt and denim pants, you are committing a sin.
Before you qoute any law in the old testament make sure to know what kind of law iyan
We have 3 law in the old testament
Civil law - for the nation of israel only
Ceremonial law - not applicable today since Jesus already died im the cross, includes what food to eat, dress to wear, menstruatuon period, etc that signify cleanes and purity of blood
Last but most important
Moral law - still applies today, includes homosexuality, adultery, cheating, idolatry, murder etc
-
Leviticus 19:19
"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
Before you qoute any law in the old testament make sure to know what kind of law iyan
We have 3 law in the old testament
Civil law - for the nation of israel only
Ceremonial law - not applicable today since Jesus already died im the cross, includes what food to eat, dress to wear, menstruatuon period, etc that signify cleanes and purity of blood
Last but most important
Moral law - still applies today, includes homosexuality, adultery, cheating, idolatry, murder etc
Ibig sabihin, pili-pili, pili-pili lang.
Bakit ba kailangan isama ang homosexuality diyan? Wala naman sinasaktan ang homosexuality eh.
-
Leviticus 19:19
"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
The Bible explicitly says can't wear clothes with two different fabrics. That means if you wear a cotton shirt and denim pants, you are committing a sin.
Before you qoute any law in the old testament make sure to know what kind of law iyan
We have 3 law in the old testament
Civil law - for the nation of israel only
Ceremonial law - not applicable today since Jesus already died im the cross, includes what food to eat, dress to wear, menstruatuon period, etc that signify cleanes and purity of blood
Last but most important
Moral law - still applies today, includes homosexuality, adultery, cheating, idolatry, murder etc
-
The Bible explicitly says can't wear clothes with two different fabrics. That means if you wear a cotton shirt and denim pants, you are committing a sin.
Hindi naman ganun ang ibig sabihin nun. The prohibition was intended during ancient Israel times where basically only wool and linen were used. Wala pa naman denim and cotton noon. One reason for the prohibition would most likely to maintain a distance between the high priest who was God's representative and the common people. Because the high priest wore both wool and linen. So bawal yun common folk. Common sense na lang. Papano mo ipagbabawal ang hindi pa naiimbento? Meron pa bang wool and linen today? Pwede ka naman magsuot ng any combination from polyester, nylon, cotton and denim. Ok lang yun. ;D
-
That's correct.
In ancient Israel, only the ephod of the high priest was woven of linen and wool. Everyone else was prohibited from having that kind of material.
The prohibition was ceremonial in nature, not moral. It was applicable to ancient Israel; it does not apply to Christians.
Manipis talaga ang unawa sa bibliya nito, ayaw pang aminin... :D
-
That's correct.
In ancient Israel, only the ephod of the high priest was woven of linen and wool. Everyone else was prohibited from having that kind of material.
The prohibition was ceremonial in nature, not moral. It was applicable to ancient Israel; it does not apply to Christians.
Manipis talaga ang unawa sa bibliya nito, ayaw pang aminin... :D
Hinahantay ko lang na i-post niya kung saan niya kinuha para malaman natin ang pag-kakaintindi niya sa verse na yun. At least alam na natin ngayon kung paano siya mag-interpret.
-
Matagal na nating alam kung paano siya mag interpret.
Isa lang naman ang direksiyon niya ---- pro gay sex.
No deep yearning for the true meaning of scripture. Basta puro lang pro gay sex... ;)
-
payo ko lang kay klaus,nabasa ko lang sa isang site
How To Read The Bible For Better Understanding
Pray first before opening God's word. Ask for guidance and to be able to accept what is written and to be able to apply His will to your life.
Never, never read the Bible trying to proof your belief on any subject. It is only human nature to take ideas out of context.
When you are reading and come across something that does not make sense, reread the paragraph or chapter again. If you still do not understand, write down the problem area and continue onward. You may discover the answers later in your reading.
Start with the New Testament, people who start with the Old Testament almost never read the Bible all the way through. The New Testament is what is binding on us today not the Old. We need to follow God's will for us today not what was intended for the Jews.
Forget everything you have ever heard about Jesus, God and the Bible before you start reading the Bible. Don't take what you want it to say with you first.
it.s not too late to try again
-
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/badcatholic/files/2012/08/215418_506716659357792_714776259_n.jpeg)
-
and then the trolling moves ...
-
[img width=720 height=623]http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/badcatholic/files/2012/08/215418_506716659357792_714776259_n.jpeg[/img
Whether homosexuality is a sin or not.... it doesn't matter. Gays are not allowed to marry because it is against the law. It's really very simple. :)
-
Gays are not allowed to marry because it is against the law. It's really very simple. :)
Then we should change the law. It's really very simple. :)
-
Then we should change the law. It's really very simple. :)
No it's not. ;)
-
Why would you even need a religion? Just be an atheist and get it over with.
My problem is about people who think they can prove that the bible is ok with gay sex acts.
Now if they just say they don't believe in the bible, then that's fine with me.
Some people cannot live life on their own two feet. They need a crutch to lift them up.
It keeps them from committing suicide as they know there is hope in the future.
-
Then we should change the law. It's really very simple. :)
no need to change the law, meron namang ibang bansa who are willing for the same sex marraige.. punta na siila dun o kaya kung meron online authorized same sex marraige then why not..
-
Encyclical on CBCP's opposition to same-sex marriage. (http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=62674)
Perusing through it, it can only be boiled down to the same darn thing: Human sexuality is only for procreation in the context of marriage. EVERYTHING else about it is sinful. Homosexual unions cannot procreate naturally therefore homosexual unions are sinful. Homosexuals and homosexual attractions are not sinful UNLESS acted upon. So pretty much, they call for homosexuals to remain celibate.
Paulit-ulit lang. It does not make sense.
-
Di paulit ulit. The Bible says homosexuality is an abomonation/sin (period).
-
Di paulit ulit. The Bible says homosexuality is an abomonation/sin (period).
The Bible says eating shrimp is an abomination/sin (period).
-
The Bible says eating shrimp is an abomination/sin (period).
Before you post any law in the Bible please make sure alam mo kung anong klaseng law ito
1. Ceremonial law - not applicable today
2. Civil law - not applicable today
3. Moral law - applicable all the time
Is eating shrimp a moral law? Pag aralan mo muna kung anong klaseng law yang pinost mo.
p
-
The Bible says eating shrimp is an abomination/sin (period).
You didn't get to the part where the bible says it's not an abomination/sin?
You don't know what you're talking about.
-
The Bible says eating shrimp is an abomination/sin (period).
Eto ba yun parang pinagpipilitan mong it's a sin to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material? ;D ;D
-
Eto ba yun parang pinagpipilitan mong its's a sin to wear clothing woven of two kinds of material? ;D ;D
One more time with feelinsg: paulit ulit na lang. Wala namang kasense sense Biblically ang pinagpopost.
-
OFF Topic (non-religious reply):
Then we should change the law. <snp>. :)
change the law and.. some more wouldn't affect the non-homos ?
ex: NHS removes word 'Dad' from pregnancy handbook in case it offends same sex couples
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2150672/NHS-remove-word-Dad-pregnancy-handbook-case-offends-sex-couples.html
that's also where the prostate gland is located and it's said very pleasurable when you stimulate it <snp>
NOT TRUE
-
History is very harsh to groups of people who support discrimination against other groups of people.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/31/15/catholics-urged-reject-same-sex-marriage
No one today is remembered fondly for discrimination against non-white people in the US. Expect this to happen to those opposed same sex marriage.
And to be honest, does the Philippine really need to encourage more people to reproduce like rabbits? The less people who reproduce the better.
-
And to be honest, does the Philippine really need to encourage more people to reproduce like rabbits? The less people who reproduce the better.
legalizing ssm will solve our over population?
for me, and dapat lang lagyan ng limitation to reproduce ay yung mga taong hindi kayang suportahan financially yung mga magiging anak nila.
-
legalizing ssm will solve our over population?
for me, and dapat lang lagyan ng limitation to reproduce ay yung mga taong hindi kayang suportahan financially yung mga magiging anak nila.
It could. The worst that could happen it be as effective as RCC approved natural family planning.
-
It could. The worst that could happen it be as effective as RCC approved natural family planning.
how?it not as if homosexuals will be forced to marry opposite sex if ssm legalization would not push through
-
Actually quite a number of homosexuals have gotten married and had children by pressure of family and their church. Maybe not forced but pressured to conform.
-
Ikasal o hindi ang homosexual walang magbabago sa population, hindi mababawasan o madagdagan. Do the math. Nothing happens whether theyve got married or not. Population increase/decrease always depend on man and woman.
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/64032456.jpg)
-
OFF Topic (again):
interestingly, the STRAIGHT (the great majority of the population) are now being pressured to conform to LGBT (minority of the populace) agenda. ==>
Shortly after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, the state’s Office of the Courts had revised its documents. A spokesperson for the courts confirmed earlier that the words “Mother” and “Father” had been replaced by the terms “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/18/tennessee-courts-replace-mother-and-father-with-parent-1-parent-2.html
-
....and what's wrong with that?
-
....and what's wrong with that?
everything
-
A father should be able to perform motherly roles, and vice versa.
-
True, to certain extent.
however, to call a father or a mother as 'parent 1' or 'parent 2' is something else.
here's another example ==>
University encouraging students to use gender-neutral pronouns like ‘ze’ and ‘zirs’
http://wtkr.com/2015/08/28/university-encouraging-students-to-use-gender-neutral-pronouns-like-ze-and-zirs/
-
Parents "1" and "2" were only used in the documents.
The University of Tennessee only encourages the use of gender-neutral pronouns. There is no mandate nor official policy to use the pronouns.
We also have gender-neutral nouns - asawa, anak, apo so I don't think this should be a big deal.
-
nawala tuloy ang personality of being dad and mom, why don't they protest about that?para ka na lang kasama ni cat in the hat as in thing 1 and thing 2
-
we also have Inay, Ina, Nanay, Itay, Tatay, Ama, Ate, kuya, tito, tita, lolo, lola, etc.
parent 1 and parent 2 are going to be a big deal if and when enforced/encouraged by adults to children so just to conform with LGBT activists.
-
You DO realize that these days in a lot of households, the father isn't JUST the breadwinner and the disciplinarian and the mother isn't JUST the nurturer and the home maker. The roles are sometimes switched and often shared. Just because you are a male, it doesn't mean you CAN'T change a diaper and cook dinner. Just because you're a woman, it doesn't mean you CAN'T work and be the main breadwinner of the family.
-
ganun naman talaga ang parents adjustable ang functions pero when in a family the dad is the dad and the mom is the mom
-
Noone is taking that away from you. As said, "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" were only used on documents.
-
You DO realize that these days in a lot of households, the father isn't JUST the breadwinner and the disciplinarian and the mother isn't JUST the nurturer and the home maker. The roles are sometimes switched and often shared. Just because you are a male, it doesn't mean you CAN'T change a diaper and cook dinner. Just because you're a woman, it doesn't mean you CAN'T work and be the main breadwinner of the family.
The differemce between man and woman is beyond anatomy and household chores... Tsk hanggang ngayon di mo pa rin gets na man and women are different. A child must not deprive of growing up sa piling ng mother and father.
Couple compose of two macho homosexuals: sige nga ipaliwanag nila sa ampon nilang batang babae paano dumaan sa adolescence.
Tsk... Porket kaya maglaba ng lalake at kaya magtrabaho ni misis eh pwede nang palakihin ng normal ang bata ng 2 machong homosexual.
-
I don't know about you but I didn't ONLY grow up with my parents. I have grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, teachers, etc. I'm sure a child of a same-sex couple will have other people in their lives to serve as their male/female role models so anything they might miss with being raised by a same-sex couple will be more than compensated by other people.
-
I don't know about you but I didn't ONLY grow up with my parents. I have grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, teachers, etc. I'm sure a child of a same-sex couple will have other people in their lives to serve as their male/female role models so anything they might miss with being raised by a same-sex couple will be more than compensated by other people.
I would disagree. These grandparents, uncles, aunts, neighbors, teachers, etc...don't spend 24hrs a day and 7 days a week with the children to match influences and impressions made by parents. Iba pa rin. You said you have a nephew... Are you always spending time with your nephew like his parents do?
-
ganun naman talaga ang parents adjustable ang functions pero when in a family the dad is the dad and the mom is the mom
+1
to add: the LGBT activists kept parroting this for years ==>
So what's wrong with same sex couples from getting married? IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU..
eh bakit naman po pati ang mga salita na ginagamit ng mga STRAIGHT na mga tao ay pilit ipinipilipit para sa kasiyahan ng mga HINDI STRAIGHT ?
linalason po ang mga kaisipan (at salita) ng mga anak ng mga STRAIGHT ..pinakikialaman ang mga kataga na ginagamit ng mga STRAIGHT subalit "it does not affect you (STRAIGHT)" daw po ?
alam po ba ninyo kung bakit patuloy po nilang nilalason ang kaisipan ng mga bata (mga anak ng mga STRAIGHT) ?
mas nainam po kung ang mga pananalita na lang po ng mga HINDI STRAIGHT ang pakialaman ng HINDI STRAIGHT. sila na lang po sana ang gumamit ng parent 1 and/or parent 2 kung iyan ang magpapasaya sa kanila.
-
Kung gusto nila, give a different form for those who wish to be termed parent 1 and parent 2 if that's how they would want to be appropriately termed in documentations(such as birth certificate) and a different form for people who still want to be addressed as such. Kasi kung sa court documentation ginawa nila yun baka maging precedence pa sa ibang documentation.
-
I would disagree. These grandparents, uncles, aunts, neighbors, teachers, etc...don't spend 24hrs a day and 7 days a week with the children to match influences and impressions made by parents. Iba pa rin. You said you have a nephew... Are you always spending time with your nephew like his parents do?
Well, no but does it really matter that a child HAS to have two parents of the opposite sex? Lots of children that come from single parent homes grow up just fine. (one example off the top of my head: U.S. President Barack Obama). Studies have all shown (kahit hindi ka maniwala) that children raised by same sex couples grow up just as well as (and in some cases even better than) children from opposite sex households.
Also, same sex couples who raise children are actually, on the average, far more attentive and loving parents than heterosexual couples. Why? Because if a same-sex couple has children, they actually WANTED them because they have to go through all these hoops and obstacles to be able to have them whether through adoption or through artificial insemination or surrogacy. Apart from the expenses, they must also contend with society wanting to prevent them from having children. So every child that a same sex couple has is 100% wanted and of course, they will take care and love them.
Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, can have children accidentally or have them because they are EXPECTED to have them or they feel obligated to have them. There is societal pressure for heterosexual couples to reproduce and procreate. Whether through accident or obligation/societal pressure, a significant percentage of children from heterosexual couples are not 100% wanted. Just going by statistics, a child from a heterosexual household is far more likely to feel unloved, abused or abandoned than a child from a same-sex household.
-
Well, no but does it really matter that a child HAS to have two parents of the opposite sex? Lots of children that come from single parent homes grow up just fine. (one example off the top of my head: U.S. President Barack Obama).
Ibang issue na yun DOES THE CHILD NEED TO HAVE 2 OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTS. Yun quoted post mo was about yun ano mang pagkukulang ng parents, will be "more than compensated" by other people. So you really did not answer my question.
Studies have all shown (kahit hindi ka maniwala) that children raised by same sex couples grow up just as well as (and in some cases even better than) children from opposite sex households.
Also, same sex couples who raise children are actually, on the average, far more attentive and loving parents than heterosexual couples. Why? Because if a same-sex couple has children, they actually WANTED them because they have to go through all these hoops and obstacles to be able to have them whether through adoption or through artificial insemination or surrogacy. Apart from the expenses, they must also contend with society wanting to prevent them from having children. So every child that a same sex couple has is 100% wanted and of course, they will take care and love them.
Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, can have children accidentally or have them because they are EXPECTED to have them or they feel obligated to have them. There is societal pressure for heterosexual couples to reproduce and procreate. Whether through accident or obligation/societal pressure, a significant percentage of children from heterosexual couples are not 100% wanted. Just going by statistics, a child from a heterosexual household is far more likely to feel unloved, abused or abandoned than a child from a same-sex household.
It's not a question of paniniwala. It's a question of what's your basis for making such statements. Can you provide nga the basis? I am not saying you're wrong. I am not saying you're right either. But let me read your basis and maybe I can understand why you made such conclusions.
Fox example what's your basis for this?
children raised by same sex couples grow up just as well as (and in some cases even better than) children from opposite sex households.
same sex couples who raise children are actually, on the average, far more attentive and loving parents than heterosexual couples.
Just going by statistics, a child from a heterosexual household is far more likely to feel unloved, abused or abandoned than a child from a same-sex household.
Is this a matter of sheer numbers, survey? Or percentages taken from a totality... like all same sex couple children?
-
Here are some articles that point that same sex couples make better parents:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628 (http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628)
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html (http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html)
http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents (http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents)
And of course logic din. It makes perfect sense that a same sex couple who spent a lot of money and went through a lot of crap and of course condemnation and judgement from people and the Church in order to get their children WILL care for them extra well as opposed to a heterosexual couple who got their child because they got drunk or only have children because it was expected of them.
-
Here are some articles that point that same sex couples make better parents:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628 (http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628)
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html (http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html)
http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents (http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents)
And of course logic din. It makes perfect sense that a same sex couple who spent a lot of money and went through a lot of crap and of course condemnation and judgement from people and the Church in order to get their children WILL care for them extra well as opposed to a heterosexual couple who got their child because they got drunk or only have children because it was expected of them.
I will try to read all of them. But with regards to same sex couple caring for them extra well is bad logic. Dito nga lalabas ang hindi mo pagka parent Klaus. Iba pa rin kung anak mo ay kadugo mo. Walang tatalo if kadugo mo. I can guarantee you that Klaus. Same sex couple who adopt will never outdo the love and care for a parent for his/her biological child. And same sex couples will never be able to duplicate that.
-
Here are some articles that point that same sex couples make better parents:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628 (http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628)
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html (http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html)
http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents (http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents)
And of course logic din. It makes perfect sense that a same sex couple who spent a lot of money and went through a lot of crap and of course condemnation and judgement from people and the Church in order to get their children WILL care for them extra well as opposed to a heterosexual couple who got their child because they got drunk or only have children because it was expected of them.
Shut the F up! Puro ka article and hearsay. Hindi ka naman parent diba?
You insist that gay parents are better than normal heterosexual parents according to what you've just read? Baliw ka ba? Lakas ng sayad mo. Bakit kasi di ka pa pakasal sa kapwa mo bakla sa ibang bansa para matahimik ka na. Dami mong issues eh.
You base your life on everything that you read. Wala ka experience. So shut the F up!
-
I will try to read all of them. But with regards to same sex couple caring for them extra well is bad logic. Dito nga lalabas ang hindi mo pagka parent Klaus. Iba pa rin kung anak mo ay kadugo mo. Walang tatalo if kadugo mo. I can guarantee you that Klaus. Same sex couple who adopt will never outdo the love and care for a parent for his/her biological child. And same sex couples will never be able to duplicate that.
Period!
-
Mas magastos mag adopt kaya mas mahal. So kung libre ang pag ampon hindi mo na mahal, walang gastos eh. Ano to pera pera ang pagmamahal.
How about this, duplicate this, 9 months pregnancy, and kalahating paa nasa hukay kapag nanganganak, at ang pagaalala ng father sa safety ng kanyang wife at anak.
Reproduce and procreate is different. Some heterosexual reproduce doesnt care love their children ganyan ang mga couple na kadalasan nagsama becaise of love only. But if the couples purpose of marriage is because of love and procreation them it is for the good of the community.children will be loved and nourished in an environment ideal for them, mother and father.
-
Shut the F up! Puro ka article and hearsay. Hindi ka naman parent diba?
You insist that gay parents are better than normal heterosexual parents according to just what you've read? Baliw ka ba? Lakas ng sayad mo. Bakit kasi di ka pa pakasal sa kapwa mo bakla sa ibang bansa para matahimik ka na. Dami mong issues eh.
You base your life on everything that you read. Wala ka experience. So shut the F up!
Eto ang mahirap sa religious kuno, self-righteous and unfortunately, laging nagmumura. LOL.
Anyway, eto ba ang klase ng hetero na ama na pinagmamalaki mo?http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/09/01/15/3-kids-killed-own-father-manila
Why can't you just let others who don't bother you, live their lives the way they want to? Kung sayo kaya gawin yan na people will hassle you because of the way you lead your life, how would you feel? Anyway, I will not expect any "sane" and "intelligent" reply, more like "third world country" beliefs reply pa expect ko. Organized religion is the opium of the "masses." Ang taong galing sa masa, balutin man ng ginto, lalabas at lalabas ang tunay na breeding.
-
Iba pa rin kung anak mo ay kadugo mo. Walang tatalo if kadugo mo. I can guarantee you that Klaus. Same sex couple who adopt will never outdo the love and care for a parent for his/her biological child. And same sex couples will never be able to duplicate that.
a.) Some same-sex couples DO have children na kadugo din nila: They also do artificial insemination and surrogacy where they can have biological children.
b.) Filipinos seem to put too much stock in "blood". So much so that there's a stigma placed on adopted children like they're something less about them ("Ampon lang yan"). There are biological parents who abandon, abuse, beat and rape their own biological children and adoptive parents who love and care for their adoptive children like their own. I would daresay adoptive parents who treat their adopted children like their own is more admirable because they are under no obligation to care for them since they care for those children VOLUNTARILY rather than being stuck with them because of blood.
-
Eto ang mahirap sa religious kuno, self-righteous and unfortunately, laging nagmumura. LOL.
Who said I was self righteous? You assumed that.
Anyway, eto ba ang klase ng hetero na ama na pinagmamalaki mo?http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/09/01/15/3-kids-killed-own-father-manila
Want me to show you links of gay violence as well?
Why can't you just let others who don't bother you, live their lives the way they want to?
If Klaus' ideology doesn't bother you, then you are either not an actual/biological parent or you are gay/bi/pro LGBT. Because the silly things he says would definitely offend and bother actual/heterosexual parents.
Kung sayo kaya gawin yan na people will hassle you because of the way you lead your life, how would you feel? Anyway, I will not expect any "sane" and "intelligent" reply, more like "third world country" beliefs reply pa expect ko. Organized religion is the opium of the "masses." Ang taong galing sa masa, balutin man ng ginto, lalabas at lalabas ang tunay na breeding.
Read the entire thread and the other one (LGBT Issues) before you make assumptions. Klaus is the one telling us what to do, accept and believe. Not the other way around. Never did I say that he should do this or that or believe on our beliefs. He needs to learn to respect our way of life and not tell us that we should do to our children just because he read it somewhere or heard it from someone.
So magbasa ka muna bago ka humirit. Ok?
Sorry simpleng mamamayan lang po ako. Elitistang sosyal at billionaryo ka siguro so pag pasensyahan mo na kaming mga massa. But regardless of your stature, you should think again before belittling the masses especially from a "third world country" like ours.
-
a.) Some same-sex couples DO have children na kadugo din nila: They also do artificial insemination and surrogacy where they can have biological children.
Just in case you don't know...
Two male cells can not produce (and vice versa for female). So only one of them is a donor and the other cell comes from the opposite sex donor.
Mag isip ka kasi muna bago ka humirit.
b.) Filipinos seem to put too much stock in "blood". So much so that there's a stigma placed on adopted children like they're something less about them ("Ampon lang yan"). There are biological parents who abandon, abuse, beat and rape their own biological children and adoptive parents who love and care for their adoptive children like their own. I would daresay adoptive parents who treat their adopted children like their own is more admirable because they are under no obligation to care for them since they care for those children VOLUNTARILY rather than being stuck with them because of blood.
"Blood is thicker than water" applies not only to Filipinos but worldwide. It also applies to animals just in case you don't know... again.
Mag isip-isip ka din pag may time.
-
Only an idiot would think na adoption/artificial insiminatipn cost so much that they will love the adopted child more. Ginawang pera pera ang pagmamahal. Klaus wake up. Get out from your imagination.
Ang pagmamahal sa anak ay hindi nakadepende sa kung magkano nagastos ng isang tao magkaroon lang ng anak.
-
What's the topic here again? Hetero parents vs homo parents? Homo parents can't be as good as hetero ones?
-
What's the topic here again? Hetero parents vs homo parents? Homo parents can't be as good as hetero ones?
same sex couples make better parents:
Do you agree with Klaus? :D
-
Here are some articles that point that same sex couples make better parents:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628 (http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628)
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html (http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html)
http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents (http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents)
And of course logic din. It makes perfect sense that a same sex couple who spent a lot of money and went through a lot of crap and of course condemnation and judgement from people and the Church in order to get their children WILL care for them extra well as opposed to a heterosexual couple who got their child because they got drunk or only have children because it was expected of them.
so ok pa talaga yung homosexuals pag nalalasing walang chance mabuntis or makabuntis no?pero teka meron akong former co worker na bading nakabuntis nung nalasing e,ayun nakasal ng di oras pero ok naman silang family pag tiningnan mo nga lang yung lalaki bading na bading kumilos.and meron akong co worker na lesbian ayun nabuntis din nung minsan nalasing,di sya pinanagutan nung guy ayun solo nya binuhay anak nya na totomboy tomboy din.
pero dito tayo sa studies
New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAAahUKEwiT0oWZmtbHAhVRCo4KHQx6A-4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frc.org%2Fissuebrief%2Fnew-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research&ei=asvlVZP1HNGUuASM9I3wDg&usg=AFQjCNEfN9Edy55cK0XA2FWybp5DAe4rQw&sig2=it8ZwgJ_NeXOJjKeW0i1qg
When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality--experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves--were among the most striking
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%).
Children of lesbian mothers:
Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
-
a.) Some same-sex couples DO have children na kadugo din nila: They also do artificial insemination and surrogacy where they can have biological children.
b.) Filipinos seem to put too much stock in "blood". So much so that there's a stigma placed on adopted children like they're something less about them ("Ampon lang yan"). There are biological parents who abandon, abuse, beat and rape their own biological children and adoptive parents who love and care for their adoptive children like their own. I would daresay adoptive parents who treat their adopted children like their own is more admirable because they are under no obligation to care for them since they care for those children VOLUNTARILY rather than being stuck with them because of blood.
hindi issue dito yung "ampon",binabaloktot mo eh,ang issue yung nag ampon.kahit ako in charge ng ampunan hindi ako papayag na magbigay ng bata sa homosexuals,call me judgmental pero im just being honest.im not saying that homosexuals are bad person pero iba na kasi pag bata pinag uusapan lalo na kung hindi mo kilala yung mag aampon.if they want to have children then they should marry opposite sex,yes its not impossible,countless ex gays are living the life of a normal husband and father and contrary to what they say,hindi miserable yung buhay nila
-
hindi issue dito yung "ampon",binabaloktot mo eh,ang issue yung nag ampon.kahit ako in charge ng ampunan hindi ako papayag na magbigay ng bata sa homosexuals,call me judgmental pero im just being honest.im not saying that homosexuals are bad person pero iba na kasi pag bata pinag uusapan lalo na kung hindi mo kilala yung mag aampon.if they want to have children then they should marry opposite sex,yes its not impossible,countless ex gays are living the life of a normal husband and father and contrary to what they say,hindi miserable yung buhay nila
You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why? Can't they be loving, responsible, caring?
-
You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why? Can't they be loving, responsible, caring?
me tanong sa yo si DVDfreak,di mo pa sinasagot
-
What does that have anything to do with my question to you?
-
What does that have anything to do with my question to you?
bakit di mo masagot?
-
bakit di mo masagot?
What's to answer? He said Klaus said homos are better parents when Klaus pointed to "articles that point that same sex couples make better parents". Reading his posts, I take that Klaus is making a case for homo parents can be just as good or even better than some hetero parents. If people think Klaus is saying homo couples are better, period, then let them clear them that out with him.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
-
What's to answer? He said Klaus said homos are better parents when Klaus pointed to "articles that point that same sex couples make better parents". Reading his posts, I take that Klaus is making a case for homo parents can be just as good or even better than some hetero parents. If people think Klaus is saying homo couples are better, period, then let them clear them that out with him.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
the question is very simple,do you agree with klaus that same sex make better parents?yes or no lang di mo masagot?
-
I don't think Klaus meant it that way. As I've said, I take that Klaus is making a case for homo parents can be just as good or even better than some hetero parents.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
-
I don't think Klaus meant it that way. As I've said, I take that Klaus is making a case for homo parents can be just as good or even better than some hetero parents.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
simple lang tanong,can same sex make better parents?yes or no?
-
I don't think Klaus meant it that way. As I've said, I take that Klaus is making a case for homo parents can be just as good or even better than some hetero parents.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
Coming from the horse's mouth na nga so to speak. He meant it that way. Did you even bother to read the links?
So do you agree with Klaus?
Ano pa ba ang confusing dito?
same sex couples make better parents:
-
Can homos be good parents? Yes.
Can homos be better than some hetero parents? Yes.
Are homos better at parenting? No.
Why? Because I don't think one's sexual orientation should have anything to do with one's parenting skills or approach.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
-
Can homos be good parents? Yes.
Can homos be better than some hetero parents? Yes.
Are homos better at parenting? No.
Why? Because I don't think one's sexual orientation should have anything to do with one's parenting skills or approach.
Back to you. You are saying homo couples can't be good parents. Why?
Hindi yan ang sinasabi ni Klaus. Hindi BETTER AT PARENTING...sabi niya MAKE BETTER PARENTS. Why is it that you seem to be squirming around with your answer? ;D It would seem to indicate you DISAGREE.
-
Hindi yan ang sinasabi ni Klaus. Hindi BETTER AT PARENTING...sabi niya MAKE BETTER PARENTS.
galing no?hilig magbato ng tanong pero pag sya tinanong mo hindi masagot ng diretso.i think he is still trying to win
-
galing no?hilig magbato ng tanong pero pag sya tinanong mo hindi masagot ng diretso.i think he is still trying to win
Hindi siya mapakali sa kinauupuan niya. ;D So I would say bumblebee disagrees with Klaus.
OK pa nga si Klaus. Kasi pinakita niya bakit ganun paniniwala niya and ang basis niya ay through those links. I disagree with him though.
-
galing no?hilig magbato ng tanong pero pag sya tinanong mo hindi masagot ng diretso.i think he is still trying to win
Ay, hindi ko pa ba nasagot? You know, this thread would be a lot more interesting if you actually try to know where the other person is coming from, instead of trying to fit your beliefs/non beliefs into what the other person is saying. Kasi, kung ganun rin lang ang gagawin mo, like one poster said, juvenile na yung discussion.
Also, hindi ako si Klaus and I don't care what he believes in. Hindi ko rin kailangan ng "knight in shining armor". Now, since you've evaded the question numerous times already, hindi ko na ako magtatanong. Iaassume ko na lang yung naiisip ko. Wala ka naman sigurong problema dun.
-
Ay, hindi ko pa ba nasagot? You know, this thread would be a lot more interesting if you actually try to know where the other person is coming from, instead of trying to fit your beliefs/non beliefs into what the other person is saying. Kasi, kung ganun rin lang ang gagawin mo, like one poster said, juvenile na yung discussion.
Sinabi na nga ni Klaus where he is coming from.... SAME SEX COUPLES MAKE BETTER PARENTS.
Also, hindi ako si Klaus and I don't care what he believes in. Hindi ko rin kailangan ng "knight in shining armor". Now, since you've evaded the question numerous times already, hindi ko na ako magtatanong. Iaassume ko na lang yung naiisip ko. Wala ka naman sigurong problema dun.
Wala naman nagsabi ikaw si Klaus. Meron ba? Kaya nga ikaw ang tinatanong if you agree with Klaus?
Now about evading the question numerous times...let me throw back at you what you told me.... ;D
You clearly lack opinion on the matter and just pick pieces you can twist.
-
New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAAahUKEwiT0oWZmtbHAhVRCo4KHQx6A-4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frc.org%2Fissuebrief%2Fnew-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research&ei=asvlVZP1HNGUuASM9I3wDg&usg=AFQjCNEfN9Edy55cK0XA2FWybp5DAe4rQw&sig2=it8ZwgJ_NeXOJjKeW0i1qg
When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality--experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves--were among the most striking
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%).
I'd like to point out that you got this from the Family Research Council who are a very conservative anti-gay group. The author of the article has made disparaging remarks against the LGBT's.
And the study that they cited has been debunked by reputable scientists and doctors already.
I wanna answer this:
I would disagree. These grandparents, uncles, aunts, neighbors, teachers, etc...don't spend 24hrs a day and 7 days a week with the children to match influences and impressions made by parents. Iba pa rin. You said you have a nephew... Are you always spending time with your nephew like his parents do?
No, I don't.
But what I'm saying is, I think same-sex parents are able to fulfill all the basic needs a child should have while ANYTHING that they would miss out on having opposite-sex parents can easily be filled by grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, neighbors, teachers, etc. I don't think it is all that significantly detrimental to a child raised by lesbians to not have a man in the house 24/7 or a child raised by gay men to not have woman in the house 24/7.
Even a lot of opposite-sex parents don't have everything a particular child may need. If a child develops a talent or interest that neither parent have or if a child is a special needs child or a handicapped child, and neither parent have experienced it, they will also need other people.
-
Magpapalaki ka ng bata na ang magulang parehas lalake o parehas na babae?
Iba ugali o pag-iisip ng babae at lalake. Pinapalaki iyung bata upang maunawaan niya ang ganitong pagkakaiba. Iba rin iyong pananamit ng babae at lalaki. Isa pa, iyung babae may mga "cycle" kuing tawagin. Isipin mo lang dalawang lalaki nagpapalaki sa isang batang babae. Paano nila gagampanin ito. Dagdagan mo pa ng pagpapaliwanag iyung "normal" na pagtatalik at ano ang produkto.
Kung tinanong mga batang ito wala sa kanila makakasagot na iyung dalawang "magulang" ay totoo nilang magulang. Panay tatay at "tatay" o di kaya nanay at "nanay" magiging sagot. Iba pagpapalaki ng totoong mga magulang sa nagpapanggap na magulang kahit gamitan mo pa iyang ng agham. Isipin mo lang iyung kahihiyan na tatanggapin ng bata kaharap ng kanyang kapwa. Hindi maiiwasan ang tuksuan.
-
I wanna answer this:
No, I don't.
But what I'm saying is, I think same-sex parents are able to fulfill all the basic needs a child should have while ANYTHING that they would miss out on having opposite-sex parents can easily be filled by grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, neighbors, teachers, etc. I don't think it is all that significantly detrimental to a child raised by lesbians to not have a man in the house 24/7 or a child raised by gay men to not have woman in the house 24/7.
Even a lot of opposite-sex parents don't have everything a particular child may need. If a child develops a talent or interest that neither parent have or if a child is a special needs child or a handicapped child, and neither parent have experienced it, they will also need other people.
Oh didn't you answer this already? I believe you did. Medyo matagaltagal na rin ito. But to my recollection, we are of different opinion about biological parents versus same sex parents. Iba pa rin if biological parents. Yun bond between parents and child is present even with the child still in the womb. Wala ito sa adoptive parents na same sex couple. Then what if opposite sex yun child sa parents? May mga itatanong yan na di masasagot ng opoosite sex parents ng child. You say grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, neighbors, teachers, etc can step in. Sure why not. They can contribute. But they cannot fulfill what biological parenfs do. They can advise the child. But wala dun yun bond that is stong enough gaya ng parents for the child to fully embrace what those people are saying. Meron kasi some sort of invisible barrier unlike sa child-biological parent relationship.
Like I keep on saying, it would be hard for you to relate to what most posters here are saying simply because you are not a parent Klaus. But we are both children of our own parents. Maybe we can have that as our common ground. Let me ask you then Klaus, do you think sapat na yun pagpapalaki ng parents mo sayo? Or tingin mo marami silang pagkukulang sayo and sa grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, neighbors, teachers, etc ka lumingon sa mga pagkukulang nila?
-
mag-aalaga ng bata tapos hahayaan sa mga tito, tita, lolo at lola ang pagpapalaki o learning experience :):):) well best nga... :):):)
-
Isipin mo kung nag-iisa kang bata sa inyong silid-aralan na ang magulang ay parehas kasarian. Paano mo haharapin mga ka-eskuwela mo kung alam nila. Isipin mo iyung tukso at panlalait.
Ano kaya nasa isip ng isang bata o tao kung mangilan ngilan lang ang kanilang kaparehas na sitwasyon. Iisipin ba niya na normal siya at nasa tama siya?
-
mag-aalaga ng bata tapos hahayaan sa mga tito, tita, lolo at lola ang pagpapalaki o learning experience :):):) well best nga... :):):)
Iyan ang sagot na palusot.
-
Magpapalaki ka ng bata na ang magulang parehas lalake o parehas na babae?
Iba ugali o pag-iisip ng babae at lalake. Pinapalaki iyung bata upang maunawaan niya ang ganitong pagkakaiba. Iba rin iyong pananamit ng babae at lalaki. Isa pa, iyung babae may mga "cycle" kuing tawagin. Isipin mo lang dalawang lalaki nagpapalaki sa isang batang babae.
Bakit? Hindi naman sila lang ang puwedeng lapitan ng anak nilang babae: May lola, may auntie, may tister na babae, may kapitbahay, may family friend, etc. Maraming malalapitan ng batang babae para sa mga yan. At hindi naman inutil ang mga gay. They know something about rin naman.
Kung tinanong mga batang ito wala sa kanila makakasagot na iyung dalawang "magulang" ay totoo nilang magulang. Panay tatay at "tatay" o di kaya nanay at "nanay" magiging sagot.
a.) There are same-sex couples who have biological children (artificial insemination/surrogacy).
b.) What is it with some people here and adoption? It's as if you have a very low opinion on adopted children and adoptive parents. Do you have something against it?
For me, the most important quality a parent should have to a child is LOVE, not blood relation whether adopted or biological. There are biological parents who abuse, rape and even kill their own children and adoptive parents who would literally give their lives for their adopted children. Blood only REALLY matters when it comes to blood transfusion and organ donations. Yun lang.
Iba pagpapalaki ng totoong mga magulang sa nagpapanggap na magulang kahit gamitan mo pa iyang ng agham. Isipin mo lang iyung kahihiyan na tatanggapin ng bata kaharap ng kanyang kapwa. Hindi maiiwasan ang tuksuan.
Children tease each other about a lot of things. With your logic, perhaps poor families should not accept scholarships to high-class private schools because baka matukso ang mga bata diyan na mahirap lang sila. That is wrong. Likewise, it's also wrong if kids tease the kids of same-sex couples.
-
Lahat ng nasabi mo pag-iiwas sa katanungan kung saan iyung magulang lang nagpapalaki. Kunukumpara natin dito ang maayos na pamilya (na magkaiba ng kasarian) at iyung maayos na pamilya (na parehas ang kasarian). Hindi natin iniisip iyung mga magulong pamilya kung saan doon mo nililihis mga sagot mo.
Sumagot ka nga ng diretso. Paki lang. HUWAG KANG UMIWAS.
Hindi mo iniisip sa mata noong bata mga sagot mo. Nilapitan ka na ba ng anak mo tungkol sa panunukso at nakita mo na ba ang epekto sa kanya? Ang hirap mabura sa isipan ang tukso at panlalait ngunit mga sagot mo ganun ganun na lang. Oo nga pala, wala ka pa lang anak kaya madali lang sumagot.
-
extended family pa ang nasa isip... tito, tita, lolo, lola, nakatira sa iisang bahay... ano un... di ba kaya ng homosexual couple ang magtayo ng sariling pamilya at kailangan pa tulong ng tito, tita, lolo, lola sa pagpapalaki ng bata?
-
^Umaamin si Klaus na hindi kakayanin kaya ganun na lang sumagot.
-
Lahat ng nasabi mo pag-iiwas sa katanungan kung saan iyung magulang lang nagpapalaki. Kunukumpara natin dito ang maayos na pamilya (na magkaiba ng kasarian) at iyung maayos na pamilya (na parehas ang kasarian). Hindi natin iniisip iyung mga magulong pamilya kung saan doon mo nililihis mga sagot mo.
How am I doing that? I'm answering your question.
extended family pa ang nasa isip... tito, tita, lolo, lola, nakatira sa iisang bahay... ano un... di ba kaya ng homosexual couple ang magtayo ng sariling pamilya at kailangan pa tulong ng tito, tita, lolo, lola sa pagpapalaki ng bata?
Kahit na opposite-sex parents, meron din ganyan.
Sumagot ka nga ng diretso. Paki lang. HUWAG KANG UMIWAS.
Hindi mo iniisip sa mata noong bata mga sagot mo. Nilapitan ka na ba ng anak mo tungkol sa panunukso at nakita mo na ba ang epekto sa kanya? Ang hirap mabura sa isipan ang tukso at panlalait ngunit mga sagot mo ganun ganun na lang. Oo nga pala, wala ka pa lang anak kaya madali lang sumagot.
-
LGBT activists agenda: tolerance => acceptance => dominance and control of the 97+% of the society.
how true is this ? ===>
Prominent Lesbian Activist Admits “Gay” Agenda Is To Destroy Marriage
http://godfatherpolitics.com/10597/prominent-lesbian-activist-admits-gay-agenda-is-to-destroy-marriage/
-
@Klaus
Ang sabi ko palihis ka kung sumagot (hindi diretso). Wala akong sinabi na hindi ka sumasagot.
Eto na lang, mas magaling ba sa tingin mo magbigay ng gabay sa isang bata ang isang taong walang karanasan sa pagpapalaki ng anak kesa sa taong may karanasan?
-
how true is this ? ===>
Prominent Lesbian Activist Admits “Gay” Agenda Is To Destroy Marriage
http://godfatherpolitics.com/10597/prominent-lesbian-activist-admits-gay-agenda-is-to-destroy-marriage/
I'm nearly 100% sure it's one of three things:
1. An outright lie.
2. A deliberate misquote/exaggeration.
3. They found the most extreme liberal feminist lesbian they could find who's not at all representative of 99% of all LGBT's and LGBT activists.
-
I'd like to point out that you got this from the Family Research Council who are a very conservative anti-gay group. The author of the article has made disparaging remarks against the LGBT's.
And the study that they cited has been debunked by reputable scientists and doctors already.
Adults with gay parents say same-sex marriage isn’t good for kids
“We don’t have childhoods,” said Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with two brothers in a chaotic world dominated by their gay father and his many lovers.
“There were no safe boundaries in my home,” said Denise Shick, who explained in her amicus brief how her transgender father spied on and fondled her, stole her clothes and tried to step into her shoes because, as a girl blossoming into womanhood, she was the very thing he wanted to be.
The briefs reveal children’s struggles with gender confusion, pressures to conform to gay values and attitudes, and feelings of isolation and sadness without being able to talk about those things with anyone.
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQFjAFahUKEwi2v4WU1eTHAhUOxI4KHRv1A4w&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2015%2Fmar%2F27%2Fadult-children-of-gays-say-gay-marriage-isnt-good-%2F%3Fpage%3Dall&usg=AFQjCNEveDptKc160yLTpuHNpvFjLZl6Rw&sig2=VCBQvBkonuSjnD4u4kzCjg
-
Adults with gay parents say same-sex marriage isn’t good for kids
“We don’t have childhoods,” said Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with two brothers in a chaotic world dominated by their gay father and his many lovers.
“There were no safe boundaries in my home,” said Denise Shick, who explained in her amicus brief how her transgender father spied on and fondled her, stole her clothes and tried to step into her shoes because, as a girl blossoming into womanhood, she was the very thing he wanted to be.
The briefs reveal children’s struggles with gender confusion, pressures to conform to gay values and attitudes, and feelings of isolation and sadness without being able to talk about those things with anyone.
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQFjAFahUKEwi2v4WU1eTHAhUOxI4KHRv1A4w&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2015%2Fmar%2F27%2Fadult-children-of-gays-say-gay-marriage-isnt-good-%2F%3Fpage%3Dall&usg=AFQjCNEveDptKc160yLTpuHNpvFjLZl6Rw&sig2=VCBQvBkonuSjnD4u4kzCjg
Counter article. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-negy-phd/adults-of-gay-parents-a-c_b_6961540.html)
-
Here are some articles that point that same sex couples make better parents:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628 (http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628)
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html (http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html)
http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents (http://www.yourtango.com/2014220316/its-science-6-reasons-gay-parents-make-best-parents)
And of course logic din. It makes perfect sense that a same sex couple who spent a lot of money and went through a lot of crap and of course condemnation and judgement from people and the Church in order to get their children WILL care for them extra well as opposed to a heterosexual couple who got their child because they got drunk or only have children because it was expected of them.
ngayon ko lang nabasa lahat at ang daming butas dito sa mga articles na pinost mo.magbigay ka ng points kung bakit mas mabuting parent ang homosexuals para maganda discussion.pero kung yung point mo lang eh dahil mas prepared to have kids ang mga homosexuals compared sa heterosexuals ang labo nun,e papaano nga ba sila magkakaroon ng sarili nilang anak?pero kung may ability na magbuntis ang same sex i'm sure triple na ang population dito sa mundo.hindi dahil wala ability to propagate ang same sex e ibig sabihin nun mas responsible sila.at at at,wag mo mamaliitin yung mga taong pinanganak ng wala sa plano,some of them became succesful and known personalities
-
How can couples of same sex marriage be more successful than opposite sex marriage if they cannot foster an atmosphere showing male and female characteristics together? How can they show the intricacies of both sexes - from material to emotional etc etc. How are normal males or females supposed to behave - this is already impossible because the parents are not behaving normally.
Same sex marriage parents can only teach their children to accept their relationship to ultimately show increasing numbers of same sex families in the future. These same children will be trained to see that same sex marriage is "normal".
-
If homosexual parents are better tham heterosexual parents bakit isinilang at pinalaki si Jesus sa heterosexual couple. God knows that the best environment for Jesus to grow ay sa piling ng isang mother and father.
-
How can couples of same sex marriage be more successful than opposite sex marriage if they cannot foster an atmosphere showing male and female characteristics together? How can they show the intricacies of both sexes - from material to emotional etc etc. How are normal males or females supposed to behave - this is already impossible because the parents are not behaving normally.
Define "normal". Is a house where the woman works and is a primary breadwinner while the man takes care of the house "normal"? Maraming heterosexual na magulang na medyo may pagka-weird at pagka-hippie. Normal ba yun? What if the parents are of different races or different religions or they both come from different cultures? Hindi rin yun "normal". If you're a Christian family in the Middle-Eastern country, you are not normal either. If you're a Filipino family living in a white American suburban neighborhood, you are not NORMAL. "Mommy, Daddy, why are we not white?" "Why are we having adobo? That's not what my classmates are having!" "Mommy, Daddy, why is Mommy Asian and Daddy is white? Why do I look like this?"
What about single parents? Are you going to take away their children? Hindi rin sila "normal". Are you also going to forbid interracial adopting?
Lahat ng pamilya may sarili sila "kaweirdohan". Same thing with same-sex parenting.
-
Define "normal". Is a house where the woman works and is a primary breadwinner while the man takes care of the house "normal"? Maraming heterosexual na magulang na medyo may pagka-weird at pagka-hippie. Normal ba yun? What if the parents are of different races or different religions or they both come from different cultures? Hindi rin yun "normal". If you're a Christian family in the Middle-Eastern country, you are not normal either. If you're a Filipino family living in a white American suburban neighborhood, you are not NORMAL. "Mommy, Daddy, why are we not white?" "Why are we having adobo? That's not what my classmates are having!" "Mommy, Daddy, why is Mommy Asian and Daddy is white? Why do I look like this?"
What about single parents? Are you going to take away their children? Hindi rin sila "normal". Are you also going to forbid interracial adopting?
Lahat ng pamilya may sarili sila "kaweirdohan". Same thing with same-sex parenting.
Normal - opposite sex parents
Dami mo pang sinabi. Lumihis ka na sa simpleng usapan. Gusto ko lang marinig sa iyo na ano ang maibibigay o maituturo ng parehas na kasarian na magulang tungkol sa lalake at babae. Paano nila magagabayan ang kanilang "anak" patungkol dito - na dahil magkaiba ang kasarian magkaiba din ang katangian at pangangailangan.
Ang parehas na lalakeng magulang ay mas maayos gumabay sa isang babaeng anak kumpara sa magulang na magkaiba ang kasarian?
Baliktarin natin, ang parehas na babaeng magulang ay mas maayos gumabay sa isang lalakeng anak kumpara sa magulang na magkaiba ang kasarian?
Ang bata ba ay may pag iisip na galing siya sa magulang na parehas ang kasarian?
Ang babae kadalasan mas gumagabay sa mga bagay patungkol sa "emotion" samantala ang lalaki naman gumagabay patungkol sa lakas. Paano ngayon gagampanan ng mga lalaking magulang iyung katangiang pambabae? Paano ngayon gagampanin ng mga babaeng magulang iyung katangiang panlalaki? Basa ng libro para matuto? Ganun ba iyun kasimple?
-
Saihin mo nga sa akin ng diretso na mas magaling pumili ang mga lalake ng pambabaeng damit kesa babae.
O di kaya, mas magaling pumili ng panlalaking damit ang babae.
Sabihin mo rin sa akin na normal ito.
-
Wala kang makikita sa Bible na nagsasabing palakihin ang bata ng dalwang lalaki o ng dalawang babae.
Single parent? Alam naman natin gaano kahirap ang aitwasyon ng single parent at ang epekto nito sa bata. Tapos dadagdagan pa mg parehong machong lalake magaampon ng babaeng anak. :-( :-(
Kahit saang angngulo abnormal ang dalawang machong lalake para magpalaki ng isang bata. Wala kang makikita sa Bible na ganoon.
-
Ang parehas na lalakeng magulang ay mas maayos gumabay sa isang babaeng anak kumpara sa magulang na magkaiba ang kasarian?
Puwede. Bakit hindi?
Baliktarin natin, ang parehas na babaeng magulang ay mas maayos gumabay sa isang lalakeng anak kumpara sa magulang na magkaiba ang kasarian?
Puwede. Bakit hindi?
Ang bata ba ay may pag iisip na galing siya sa magulang na parehas ang kasarian?
I can't answer that. Why not ask someone who was raised by a same-sex parent?
I guess it's the same as an adopted child of a different race.
Ang babae kadalasan mas gumagabay sa mga bagay patungkol sa "emotion" samantala ang lalaki naman gumagabay patungkol sa lakas. Paano ngayon gagampanan ng mga lalaking magulang iyung katangiang pambabae? Paano ngayon gagampanin ng mga babaeng magulang iyung katangiang panlalaki? Basa ng libro para matuto? Ganun ba iyun kasimple?
Ang "emotion" hindi yan exclusive na pambabae lamang. Ang "lakas" hindi rin exclusive na panlalake lamang. Lahat tayo, no matter what our biological gender is, have our own masculine and feminine characteristics. Of course an average male is far more masculine than feminine and vice-versa. Ang ating macho, patriarchal culture is what is giving you this narrow-minded "panlalake lang yan" and "pambabae lang yan" mentality.
Saihin mo nga sa akin ng diretso na mas magaling pumili ang mga lalake ng pambabaeng damit kesa babae.
O di kaya, mas magaling pumili ng panlalaking damit ang babae.
Sabihin mo rin sa akin na normal ito.
There are male fashion designers who design dresses and know what's a nice dress or not. And quite a few of them are even straight.
There are also female fashion designers who design men's wear and know what looks good on a man or not. And most of them are even straight.
You should really try and get out of your line of thinking na "ang lalake ay dapat ganito" at "ang babae ay dapat ganyan" because we are all individuals. You cannot define and box a person solely based on their biological gender. A man can be emotional and sensitive. A woman can be a strong leader. And everything in between. Yes, I acknowledge that men and women are different but as individuals we are different too and we can't really judge solely based on gender.
-
Ang sagot ko diyan kumausap ka ng mas maraming tao at mga bata para nakikita mo o naiintindihan mo ang pakiramdam nila. Kung isasagot mo sa iyung pananaw lang eh di lahat ng sinabi mo ay tama. Ngunit hindi ganun ang mundo. Isipin mo na lang na ganito ... hirap na hirap ka sa pagpapaliwanag pero bakit ang mundo hindi pa rin nakikinig (o nakikinig ng paminsan minsan). Simple lang sagot doon. Hindi nila tanggap.
-
Marami ang hindi tanggap noon, na tanggap na ngayon. Like mothers working while fathers run the household. Hindi yun tanggap 50 years ago pero ngayon medyo okay na. Even the CONCEPT of women's rights hindi tanggap 100 years ago, pero ngayon okay na.
Hell, even your beloved Christianity, hindi tanggap noong Roman times.
Is that the lesson you wish to share to your children? Don't do anything na "hindi tanggap" ng nakararami because you don't wish for them to be different, stand out or rock the boat for fear of them being ostracized? Even if that thing na "hindi tanggap" isn't inherently wrong?
-
The Bible say it is wrong kaya iyon ang ituturo namin... Ang moral sin na homosexuality noon, ay moral sin pa rin hanggang ngayon.
Kahit anong baliktad gawin mo, hindi maganda sa bata na lumaki sa parehong father ang pagiisip at galaw o parehong mother ang pagiisip at galaw.
-
Marami ang hindi tanggap noon, na tanggap na ngayon. Like mothers working while fathers run the household. Hindi yun tanggap 50 years ago pero ngayon medyo okay na. Even the CONCEPT of women's rights hindi tanggap 100 years ago, pero ngayon okay na.
Hell, even your beloved Christianity, hindi tanggap noong Roman times.
Is that the lesson you wish to share to your children? Don't do anything na "hindi tanggap" ng nakararami because you don't wish for them to be different, stand out or rock the boat for fear of them being ostracized? Even if that thing na "hindi tanggap" isn't inherently wrong?
Kahit anong baliktad mo sa sinasabi ko ang mundo parang gulong iyan. Babalik at babalik rin iyan sa tama. Kung sa tingin mo umikot iyung gulong at medyo lumihis patungo sa mga nais mo hindi rin tatagal iyun.
Makinig ka sa tama. Huwag mong ipinaiiral ang mga nais mong wala naman sa lugar.
-
Kahit anong baliktad mo sa sinasabi ko ang mundo parang gulong iyan. Babalik at babalik rin iyan sa tama. Kung sa tingin mo umikot iyung gulong at medyo lumihis patungo sa mga nais mo hindi rin tatagal iyun.
Makinig ka sa tama. Huwag mong ipinaiiral ang mga nais mong wala naman sa lugar.
This kind of attitude is PRECISELY the reason it took more than 300 years for us to kick out Spain.
-
This kind of attitude is PRECISELY the reason it took more than 300 years for us to kick out Spain.
Before spaniards came in the Philippines, mother and father are the normal norm of family.
-
This kind of attitude is PRECISELY the reason it took more than 300 years for us to kick out Spain.
Lumihis na ang usapan at hindi mo na nasagot ang mga katanungan ko sa simpleng bagay na pagpapalaki ng anak ng magulang na parehas ang kasarian. Ang naging sagot mo lang ay kaya o kakayanin tutal may mga kamag anak naman. Meron pa ... magaling naman iyung ibang magulang kasi fashion designer sila ... ang "galing" mo naman sumagot at umiwas.
-
Before spaniards came in the Philippines, mother and father are the normal norm of family.
@Klaus, ano nga ba ang umiiral noon bago dumating itong mga dayuhan? Sasagot na ako kasi iiwas ka rin lang naman eh ... "wala pa ako sa panahon na iyun ... magbasa ka na lang patungkol sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas" ...
-
Lumihis na ang usapan at hindi mo na nasagot ang mga katanungan ko sa simpleng bagay na pagpapalaki ng anak ng magulang na parehas ang kasarian. Ang naging sagot mo lang ay kaya o kakayanin tutal may mga kamag anak naman. Meron pa ... magaling naman iyung ibang magulang kasi fashion designer sila ... ang "galing" mo naman sumagot at umiwas.
Hindi ako umiiwas. I'm just not answering what you want to hear. Na-post ko na ang mga studies na ang mga batang lumaki sa same sex parents do just as well as those of opposite sex parents, on the average. It shows that the biological gender of the parents matters very little if you raise the child with love and care. Ayaw ka naman maniwala.
You are still stuck in the gender-box mentality (men = breadwinners; women = nurturers). You also seem to have a low opinion on adoption, that someone could not possibly love a child not biologically their own or at least not as much.
You seem to also place a value on conformity to the majority and blind obedience to the authority (which is what I meant when I said that's why it took the Philippines centuries to kick out Spain, na-brainwash na tayo ng mga prayle which lives to this day, unfortunately).
You don't seem to place a value on individuality. You seem to champion to fit in as much as possible and not rock the boat as much as possible. A child from a same sex family comes from a family that's not in the majority, true. And he may get flak for it. But so will the child that comes from a single parent family, a child that comes from a family of a different religion, or a child coming from a different culture, etc. Lahat tayo iba-iba. May kanila-kanilang ka-weirdohan. Being raised by a same-sex couple is NO DIFFERENT from those.
You seem to be of the mindset that if your child gets bullied, it must be the fault of your child. Your child is doing something way too weird to be a target of bullies. If your son likes to wear pink, and he gets bullied for it, you probably think it's your son's fault and not the bullies' fault. Personally, there's nothing wrong with a boy wearing pink. If a boy wants to wear pink, he should have the freedom to do so. Gusto niya yan, eh. Wala naman siya sinasaktan. Ano pakialam ng iba kung ano ang gusto niya?
-
I'm nearly 100% sure it's one of three things:
teacher: "Pedro, 1 + 1 is ?"
student: "ma'am, 100% sigurado po ako na isa diyan ang tamang sagot sa tanong. kung hindi A ay B. kung hindi A o B ay C"
teacher: "umupo ka na Pedro"
:o ;D
1. An outright lie.
2. A deliberate misquote/exaggeration.
3. They found the most extreme liberal feminist lesbian they could find who's not at all representative of 99% of all LGBT's and LGBT activists.
based on ?
-
28 questions for Christians who still oppose gay marriage. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw6EvvYFr1g)
-
(https://scontent-sin1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12112276_10153143954196863_7194242784894327976_n.jpg?oh=cc34cde3e046190760cc7851c1349ed5&oe=569A87CE)
-
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-04-01-homophobic.jpg)
-
if the union of two male partners or for that matter two female partners can produce a natural born child, i am for it, otherwise they are an abomination...
now a union between a bakla and a tomboy and procreating is a wonderful thing...
-
now a union between a bakla and a tomboy and procreating is a wonderful thing...
Well, I guess there is nothing wrong here Biblically. :):)
-
aand there are some avowed bakla marrying the opposite sex,
Ogie Alcasid, and Jun Encarnacion for example, i sure there are many others....
-
^Ogie Diaz yata, not Alcasid.
-
^Ogie Diaz yata, not Alcasid.
hehehehe, oo nga ano, sorry po, senor lang....:D
-
hehehehe, oo nga ano, sorry po, senor lang....:D
Ka Tony, ano ba ibig sabihin ng marraige?
-
if the union of two male partners or for that matter two female partners can produce a natural born child, i am for it, otherwise they are an abomination...
So the union of a sterile couple and an older couple (past the age of procreation) is also an abomination?
-
So the union of a sterile couple and an older couple (past the age of procreation) is also an abomination?
how can it be? your logic is something else......
God designed that man will take a woman, the woman will be his wife
and together they will become as one....
nothing comes out of the union between a man and another man...
-
how can it be? your logic is something else......
God designed that man will take a woman, the woman will be his wife
and together they will become as one....
nothing comes out of the union between a man and another man...
I'm just using your logic. You say a homosexual relationship cannot produce a natural born child that's why it's an abomination. Well, sterile couples and older couples cannot produce natural born children either. So therefore, they are abominations na rin.
-
The Bible says homosexuality are abomination (period).
Walang sinasabi sa Bible na sex between sterile couple is abomination.
Wala ring sinasabi na sex between older couple is abomination.
-
Eating shrimp is also described in the Bible as an abomination.
-
Eating shrimp is also described in the Bible as an abomination.
Can you kindly cite the verses in the bible where eating shrimp is an abomination?
-
Eating shrimp is also described in the Bible as an abomination.
Going circle again, Klaus?
Is eating shrimp a moral law or ceremonial law (eg garments, menstruation etc)? Moral law such as homosexuality still applicable today but ceremonial law exclusively for the nation of Israel back then is not applicable today, the same will apply to all civic law intended for Israel back then.
Murder, adultery, homosexuality, so on and so forth are all considered moral sin and still applicable today. Please study first the all type/kind of law in the Bible before you post.
-
Eating shrimp is also described in the Bible as an abomination.
You can eat shrimp....
Mark 7:19
19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
On homosexuality....
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality
-
if the union of two male partners or for that matter two female partners can produce a natural born child, i am for it, otherwise they are an abomination...
now a union between a bakla and a tomboy and procreating is a wonderful thing...
sa office namin meron ganito; gwaping na tomboy at magandang bakla. di rin nagtagal, nambabae si tomboy (kahit nabilhan ng auto ni bakla) >:D
-
sa office namin meron ganito; gwaping na tomboy at magandang bakla. di rin nagtagal, nambabae si tomboy (kahit nabilhan ng auto ni bakla) >:D
aawww...
spiritually speaking - mahina talaga ang puso at laman ng isang tao
-
I'm just using your logic. You say a homosexual relationship cannot produce a natural born child that's why it's an abomination. Well, sterile couples and older couples cannot produce natural born children either. So therefore, they are abominations na rin.
how can?
how can it be? your logic is something else......
God designed that man will take a woman, the woman will be his wife
and together they will become as one....
nothing comes out of the union between a man and another man...
-
sa office namin meron ganito; gwaping na tomboy at magandang bakla. di rin nagtagal, nambabae si tomboy (kahit nabilhan ng auto ni bakla) >:D
malinaw naman ang motivation.......pera pera lang....
-
malinaw naman ang motivation.......pera pera lang....
si tomboy na inlove lang (hiwalay narin sila nung 3rd party). di nya tinanggap yung auto na binigay (suhol) ni bakla. so i dont think pera, though matagal ng gusto ni tomboy magka auto; di naman nya sinamantala. ngayon si bakla may 2 auto, atleast may coding car na sya hehehe
-
The Third Way: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgDLWOFCRA
-
On her radio show sometime prior to 2004, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22,
and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an
open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the
Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Anonymous
Lets talk again if you know the difference between mosaic law, Israel's law, ceremonial law and moral law.
(sa thread na ito, di na yan truncated :) )
-
THOSE "DR LAURA" QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
By Stephen Green.
"Dear Dr. Laura,
Q. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
A. No. You need a Israelite priest to offer the sacrifice for you in the Temple in Jerusalem; you can't just do it yourself in your back garden. You have a problem! The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But stop believing in the pleasing odour of animal sacrifices anyway, for it is written that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin (Heb 10:4). You need to believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross takes away all your sin, now and forever. As to offering violence against your neighbours, that will have you hauled up in front of the magistrates for a breach of the peace and actual bodily harm at a minimum under any system of law, ancient or modern.
Q. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). How do I tell? I have tried asking but most women take offence.
A. This is to do with purity of worship in the Temple . Not just sexual intercourse (we would all be agreed on that) but even touching a menstruating woman made the one who touched her unclean. It has passed. When the Temple in Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD, as Jesus prophesied, it was already 40 years past its use-by date. The sacrifice of Jesus in AD 30 (+/- a year or two) had rendered the doings of the Temple obsolete. Even the veil of the Temple (which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of Temple ) was torn in two (Matt 27:51) at His death. Believe in His death and you will be forgiven. Believe in His resurrection and you will live. If the matter you raise still troubles you, you should avoid all contact with women other than your own wife. And if you don't know when she is in what you describe as her period of uncleanliness, then heaven help you.
Q. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the French but not to the Scots. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Scottish people?
A. It doesn't actually say slaves, it says 'bondmen and bondmaids'. People who were poor bonded themselves or their children to someone wealthy. It was a form of social security. It is also written (Exod 21:16) that anyone who steals a man to sell him shall be put to death. So those Muslim slavers who took and sold black slaves to the white man were flat out of order and worthy of death. Don't forget that the man who had slavery outlawed in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. Atheists were quite happy with slavery.
Q. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
A. It actually says 'maidservant' not slave. I should have thought you were doing well enough at Capital not to have to sell your daughter as a bonded servant. What a rotten dad you are, to want to get rid of her even though you can afford to keep her. Daughters are precious. So are sons, come to that. You'ld have to be in pretty dire straights 3,000 years ago to sell your children as servants, but I guess they would at least get fed and housed then. Anyway, back to your daughter. I think you would do better to send her to college and then see if she can't get a job. Mind you, most jobs today are just wage-slavery, aren't they? We spend 45% of our time working for the tax-man. Who can be totally free? Only those who trust in Jesus and know the truth will be free, as it is written, 'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
Q. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself or may I arrange for our vicar to do it?
A. Neither. You need to remember that the ancient principle of 'due process' still persists in our law today, despite a succession of Home Secretaries, including dear David Blunkett, wanting to get rid of it as a bit of an impediment to the Government just locking up whoever they want. So you can't go around putting people to death yourself, that is what we Christians call murder. OK, if someone killed your son or raped your daughter, you might call it vengeance, but you have no personal interest in what your neighbour is doing, it just gets up your nose a bit. Report your neighbour to the police, support your allegation with two witnesses, and see if the police can find a law against what your neighbour is doing. They won't. This country doesn't do a day of rest in any form any more.
Q. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
A. This applies to the High Priest of ancient Israel, who entered into the Holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. I suppose God has a right to say who was going to approach Him in the Holy of holies. But even if you are a cohen, (a) you won't find the Temple still standing today and (b) all that Temple ritual is past. Jesus has been and has offered Himself for the sins of all who will believe in Him. Job done. Finished.
Q. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
A. God did not want His people looking like the pagan priests of the nations round about with dodgy haircuts and peculiar beards. Getting your hair cut as such isn't wrong in the eyes of God. Exekiel the prophet (Ezek 44:20) says that the rule for the priest is to have his hair cut neatly, not shave his head nor grow his hair stupidly long like what the pagans do. Can't see this was a capital offence, though, even then.
Q. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
A. Clean and unclean animals are done away with by Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15. My advice if this really worries you is to play as a forward or a back, and not as a midfielder, as they do most throwing in and place-kicking, and certainly don't play in goal. And don't handball either, as that is against the laws of the game.
Q. A friend of mine feels that though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10) it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
A. They are different words in Hebrew, so your friend is right. But in any case, the clean and unclean animals distinction has gone with Peter's vision. So the New Testament abolishes the Old Testament food laws, although there are Christians who observe the Old Testament food laws not least for health reasons. Shellfish, for example, don't half store up toxins But the New Testament confirms that homosexual activity is an abomination.
Q. My friend tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone him as commanded in Leviticus 24:10-16 ?
A. Yes, because it is all a matter of due process. You are a bit for taking the law into your own hands, aren't you? Does your friend actually curse the Name of God like the man in Leviticus did? Anyway, next you must find a judge and jury who will convict him. Unless his blasphemy really is scurrilous, abusive or offensive to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, and tends to vilify the Christian religion, you are unlikely to see a conviction in our land today. Best let your friend know how offended you are and if he persists, get another friend. He sounds a bad sort, anyway.
Q. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
A. Doesn't sound much of a farmer. How is he going to harvest it? Mind you, he could put a fence down the middle, then he would have two fields, and he could sow one crop on one side and the other on the other side, I suppose. As long as his wife does not wear a mixture of wool and linen, she should be OK to go and take part in ancient Israelite society. Back to the future!
Q. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?
A. You don't half have a vicious streak. Once again, in God's design for mankind, the State has the responsibility for the judicial death penalty, not the family. God's law does not allow people to put members of their own family to death. You are thinking of Islam and Hinduism. Oh, and Britain today. When our Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967, they took away the death penalty from the guilty, by the State, where it belongs, and placed it on the innocent, within the family, where it does not. Macabre or what?
hope this answer your post jlaw.
-
Bro wag nyo na iquote yan. Paulit ulit eh
-
Bro wag nyo na iquote yan. Paulit ulit eh
ginawa ko na sir... pero napagsabihan akong "idiot" :):):)
mahirap na... huwag daw truncated... baka mahusgahan pa tayo.... :):):)
Shut the f up, idiot, as Jessica Zafra would say. You truncated the post to serve your sinister purpose.
-
Contrary to what LGBT community is claiming that they are progress or next in evolution.
LGBT is not new, bible has records of what happens when society allows and approves them. Just like in the days of Noah and the days of Lot, it only ends in destruction. There are historical records as well like in the Roman empire.
I guess that's one of the reason why I was sent on a mission here in NZ. Same sex is allowed here so people really need to hear the gospel. We have delivered some here from homosexuality. There are cases where it is influenced by a demon and some by the society.
Sana I will meet KW dito at nang ma deliverance ....
-
ginawa ko na sir... pero napagsabihan akong "idiot" :):):)
mahirap na... huwag daw truncated... baka mahusgahan pa tayo.... :):):)
Ang DIMWIT ba is IDIOT din?
-
Contrary to what LGBT community is claiming that they are progress or next in evolution.
LGBT is not new, bible has records of what happens when society allows and approves them. Just like in the days of Noah and the days of Lot, it only ends in destruction. There are historical records as well like in the Roman empire.
I guess that's one of the reason why I was sent on a mission here in NZ. Same sex is allowed here so people really need to hear the gospel. We have delivered some here from homosexuality. There are cases where it is influenced by a demon and some by the society.
Sana I will meet KW dito at nang ma deliverance ....
savior!
-
Wow ;D
-
savior!
Hey, its not like that.
Actually, when I was a child I was effeminate. And I got friends who are gay since elementary and even til college. They try to influence but still it's my choice so it didnt happen. Some of my gay friends also manage to become straight as they have been delivered thru the scriptures. And now serving in the church as well as having own family.
That has been part of my ministry even when I was in Singapore. To counsel LGBT and some open their minds to receive Jesus as their savior and indeed they got set free from their situations.
And from my experience, LGBT are influenced either by a demon or its environment/society or even both. As such it can only be set free by discipleship and deliverance.
Thru deliverance, it has always been the combined spirit of lust & spirit of homosexuality residing in the person. In the study demonology, they say the principality behind is called by the name of Asmodeus.
-
I just want to think youre that bro. Savior of soul in the wilderness. Keep it up!
-
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
-
Actually...
(http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/marriage.jpg)
oh... tama naman... man and woman...
kanina ko pa hinahanap pero wala talaga akong makitang (man and man) or (woman and woman) diyan sa illustration mo :):):)
pa double check nga kung may sinasabi ang bible sa ganito (baka kasi di ko lang napansin sa illustration mo):
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReE0YPfiLsO97LzJgGd9tKsKGSC9bw_N9AJW9PF7RuUB0L1-giGnILGxnX)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZZ1X9zf5LPZ2YTp7HEmGxAgBy11w73YiRFi3Doqaf3kiwheCdwRCwRw0)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReE0YPfiLsO97LzJgGd9tKsKGSC9bw_N9AJW9PF7RuUB0L1-giGnILGxnX)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0ILKrlFhS65rUqzh6ZzXdoSY0E42hGXd8DXtZj4Z-gzxmOxMwCtGHd27c)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZZ1X9zf5LPZ2YTp7HEmGxAgBy11w73YiRFi3Doqaf3kiwheCdwRCwRw0)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0ILKrlFhS65rUqzh6ZzXdoSY0E42hGXd8DXtZj4Z-gzxmOxMwCtGHd27c)
-
(https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg)
Hello Klaus. Would you want me to explain to you further re this picture?
-
Maybe if male and male and girl and girl, no need for rules in the bible.
-
but the bible is just written by man... soo....
Just bumped into this trade.
No offense meant, but who would you think would write the bible? The monkeys? Of course its man but under the inspiration God.
2 Peter 1:21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Timothy 3:16New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Would you be able to understand if God would not use a human agent to get His message across. Imagine God who created the whole universe in His infinite wisdom would talk to a fallen man it would be like you talking to an ant.
The bible has been around for thousand of years, it change millions of lives including mine and that of my two brothers as well, by claiming and believing God's promises as contained in the bible, it change our lives for the better, freed us from drug and porn addiction, totally healed my wife from aneurysm (that was five years ago).
Countless people tried to destroy and discredit the bible, communist Russia and China, Islam the list goes on and on but it continue to survive, why? Because it is really God's word.
Through out the ages, thousands of Christians have sacrificed their lives, faced torture, beheadings, crucifixion and any unimaginable painful excruciating death just because of their faith in the God of the Bible. Why because it is really the truth and no amount of torture or death could make them deny their faith.
Now who would I believe? the bashers of the Bible who would not even sacrifice their lives for their belief that there is no God? Or the God of the Bible who gave us a new chance in life and a second life to my wife?
Now if you will not believe in the bible its your personal choice, but I hope and pray that one day, the truth will also set you free.
God loves you and you are not an accident or a result of a random chance my friend. God bless and peace to everyone.
-
Tama. Kung unggoy ang babasa, unggoy din dapat ang susulat. Kung tao ang babasa, tao rin dapat ang susulat.
Sa akin naman, simple lang ang sagot ko sa ganyan. Kung ayaw maniwala sa bible, e di wag. Wala namang pilitan yan e.
That is why Jesus said: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (Lk. 16: 31)
-
Pope Francis says Church owes gays an apology. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/pope-says-gays-deserve-an-apology-from-church.html?mid=twitter_nymag)
-
Pope Francis says Church owes gays an apology. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/pope-says-gays-deserve-an-apology-from-church.html?mid=twitter_nymag)
Correct!
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
-
Ang DIMWIT ba is IDIOT din?
is stupid and idiot the same thing?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090628073843AA3VC81
-
(https://scontent-sin6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14317541_528610634006200_3009229511602688826_n.jpg?oh=7a04662365061f985c1d50b0575deeca&oe=5875CCD2)
-
anong human rights ang ipinagkakait ng Pilipinas (o ng Roman Catholics in general) sa mga LGBT? meron ba?
-
Well, the anti-discrimination bill still hasn't passed.
And of course, the right to marry and have a family and have that be legally recognized hasn't passed yet either.
Both are being blocked on religious grounds.
-
Well, the anti-discrimination bill still hasn't passed.
And of course, the right to marry and have a family and have that be legally recognized hasn't passed yet either.
Both are being blocked on religious grounds.
You have the right to marry. May sinasabi ba ang batas na pinagbawalan kang magpakasal? May sinasabi ba ang batas na bawala kang magkaroon ng family of your own?
-
Gay people are not allowed to marry the people they love, which is USUALLY a person of the same sex.
-
Well, the anti-discrimination bill still hasn't passed.
And of course, the right to marry and have a family and have that be legally recognized hasn't passed yet either.
Both are being blocked on religious grounds.
Not really on religious grounds.
Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk
-
Gay people are not allowed to marry the people they love, which is USUALLY a person of the same sex.
Diyan tayo hindi magkakasundo :)
Just because the law doesn't allow us to marry "the love of our life" it doesn't mean that they don't have the rights to marry.
For example:
1. Si Juan Dela Cruz gustong pakasalan (marry) ang kanyang Nanay (the love of his life) but our law doesn't allow it, ibig ba sabihin noon pinagkaitan siya ng kanyang karapatang makapag-asawa?
2. Si Pedro Gil Puyat gustong pakasalan (marry) ang asawa ng kanyang kapitbahay (the love of his life) but our law doesn't allow it, ibig ba sabihin noon pinagkaitan siya ng kanyang karapatang makapag-asawa?
-
Madami sa pinoydvd mahal na mahal nila mga gears nila kabilang na ako doon. :D :D :D
-
Diyan tayo hindi magkakasundo :)
Just because the law doesn't allow us to marry "the love of our life" it doesn't mean that they don't have the rights to marry.
For example:
1. Si Juan Dela Cruz gustong pakasalan (marry) ang kanyang Nanay (the love of his life) but our law doesn't allow it, ibig ba sabihin noon pinagkaitan siya ng kanyang karapatang makapag-asawa?
2. Si Pedro Gil Puyat gustong pakasalan (marry) ang asawa ng kanyang kapitbahay (the love of his life) but our law doesn't allow it, ibig ba sabihin noon pinagkaitan siya ng kanyang karapatang makapag-asawa?
*sighs*
I don't wanna argue with you about this again. We've already gone through this.
-
(https://scontent-sin6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14370350_1051109881662712_8462647289250258910_n.jpg?oh=d70a6db9b10d239bc8bfba6d9654d7ae&oe=587374A1)
-
Vatican endorses new LGBT-friendly book. (https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/04/09/top-vatican-u-s-church-officials-back-new-gay-friendly-book/)
-
Sexuality as explained through ice cream, courtesy of Bill Nye. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46h-LfNWPn8)
-
Medjo hindi ko lang ma-gets yum analogy. I mean ice creams have different flavors talaga because of the fruits and flavoring whereas sa tao 2 lang ang DNA ng sex.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
-
Medjo hindi ko lang ma-gets yum analogy. I mean ice creams have different flavors talaga because of the fruits and flavoring whereas sa tao 2 lang ang DNA ng sex.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Hindi mo ma-gets o AYAW ma-gets?
Sexuality and gender are both in a spectrum. That's what the cartoon is basically saying. We're all different in various different ways in terms of sexual orientation and gender.
It's not: You're born male. You act purely masculine. You like ONLY women. You're born female. You act purely feminine. You like ONLY men. Para sa mga makikitid ang utak, eto lang ang dapat. Eto lang ang tama.
You have to understand that a lot of people don't fit into these neat black & white categories. Some males act a little feminine. Some females like women. Some males like both men and women. Pero ayaw niyo tangappin yun as a fact of life and not a mistake/sin to be corrected. Wala akong magagawa kung yan ang pananaw ninyo.
-
Hindi mo ma-gets o AYAW ma-gets?
Sexuality and gender are both in a spectrum. That's what the cartoon is basically saying. We're all different in various different ways in terms of sexual orientation and gender.
It's not: You're born male. You act purely masculine. You like ONLY women. You're born female. You act purely feminine. You like ONLY men. Para sa mga makikitid ang utak, eto lang ang dapat. Eto lang ang tama.
You have to understand that a lot of people don't fit into these neat black & white categories. Some males act a little feminine. Some females like women. Some males like both men and women. Pero ayaw niyo tangappin yun as a fact of life and not a mistake/sin to be corrected. Wala akong magagawa kung yan ang pananaw ninyo.
Yan ang hirap sa iyo. Im trying to understand pero you'd rather blame me na AYAW kong intindihin. Ikaw ang mahilig sa ad hominem. That is the reason kaya instead na ang mga tao dito nasa iyo ang sympathy, nawawala. Although I understand that this involves your being and person as a whole, can you at least try to be discrete in blaming other people as to your thoughts on them. If you cannot understand me, here's something for you:
"Hindi mo ma-gets o AYAW ma-gets?".
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
-
(https://scontent-sin6-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75316066_3001073409921084_3298952169465577472_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQkTxxD770uUhv5-jp3Ngfx3PPCoAgw37sCDmxCcdk7n76AxQ2Ct306pouK2r4mauow&_nc_ht=scontent-sin6-2.xx&oh=194022d4637e326042c7f962462e2670&oe=5E3FEA38)
-
Bored ka na naman klaus? ;D
-
Nung sinabi ni Kristo sa kanyang mga alagad na "mahalin nyo ang iyong kapwa tulad ng pagmamahal nyo sa akin" hindi naman nya sinabi na huwag bakla tomboy at babae at lalaki lamang.......... 8)
-
(https://scontent-sin2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/80017237_735460430272353_6790488671029035008_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_eui2=AeFa0rS0kCbUSVbmWfw-IwY4-hPYdAlqO_Xkh3SU3y4huF67j1fGqjWYrZUX2vys0YMrJz5BBCzZ7GyYoKrGbug2EdiB8IMvCwCd3ESR-KdWbQ&_nc_oc=AQnwQ3nIEOuedThzvt1JlWbr0TZuF85tW9xZKfmECJ_1Pj4XfzU_cz0Oz31DqMyS8Yk&_nc_ht=scontent-sin2-1.xx&_nc_tp=1&oh=67f89f837b5b286586291bf7dd39408d&oe=5E92C144)
-
...some people find this sensible? Really?
-
Pope backs civil unions for gay couples
https://www.rappler.com/world/global-affairs/pope-francis-support-same-sex-civil-unions
How to read Pope Francis' message of love for LGBTQ people
https://cnnphilippines.com/world/2020/10/22/Pope-Francis-LGBT-same-sex-civil-union-hope.html
Pope’s civil union words spark reactions around the globe
https://apnews.com/article/international-news-9191edad019d8163e8d5b9d5b0fff3c7
Sotto doubts Pope Francis’ civil union stance will have effect on PH legislation
https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/10/22/Sotto-Pope-Francis-civil-union-same-sex-couples-.html
-
^ A huge controversy. Arguments and debates all over now. Many saying the Pope was only misinterpreted and misquoted, perhaps even deliberately.
-
maliwanag naman Civil Union binibigyan lang talaga ng ibang meaning ng iba.
-
We *should* have legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Churches can decide if they want to officiate/recognize/sanctify it of course but as far as legality is concerned, same-sex couples should be afforded the same legal recognition/protection under the government as straight couples.
-
ipapalabas pa lang yung documentary...
-
We *should* have legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Churches can decide if they want to officiate/recognize/sanctify it of course but as far as legality is concerned, same-sex couples should be afforded the same legal recognition/protection under the government as straight couples.
At its core, what LGBT couples need is government recognition as they should be entitled the same benefits as cisgendered couples.
It is truly a civil rights issue as opposed to a moral one.