<![CDATA[the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption]]>daddies and mummies, lets wait for the day when the scientists identify the GAY gene so to speak… then we will start talking about equal rights for homosexuals as it is proven not to be a lifestyle choice but a physical condition. In this scenario, I would become a proponent of equal rights for them as they need our acceptance and not blame.


Problem with this GAY gene thing is, some crazies would start asking doctors to kill off babies with GAY genes to maintain the sustainability of the HUMAN RACE. Which is gross…

But if homosexuality is due to some deviant cultural influence and due to psychological influences and not something physiological, I would choose to maintain my current apathetic attitude towards their push for equal rights in society.

In Singapore, they can choose to do anything they want, even though there are draconian laws that supposedly will put them into jail, the government has taken an extremely light touch and did not apply these archaic law against them. This can of worms opened only when 2 homosexual men were found in the toilet engaging in an obscene act. I would say, charge them under another law that applies to indecency in public and let it be the end of the story.

>.< sorry for my rant.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/topic/61125/the-gay-agenda-same-sex-marriage-and-adoptionRSS for NodeWed, 13 May 2026 13:54:37 GMTSat, 31 Aug 2013 06:16:02 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:43:06 GMT]]>

Irrelevant:
limlim:

It is against nature and threatened the survival of the species if such unnatural practice were to gain widespread acceptance by the general community and cause undesirable influence on the offspring.. Such dangerous behavior must be nipped in the bud and prevented from polluting the rest of the population.


I'm surprised by your statement.

Do you mean that once you have encountered enough gay behaviour/culture, you will feel like being gay too?

A logical extension to that is that if one lives on a farm and watch the animals breed, one will be tempted to engage in acts of bestiality too? :scratchhead:

That comment was more linked to legalizing gay marriages and allowing them to adopt and form a family.

Like I said earlier, we can coexist in harmony with them, but should not allow them to try and gain recognition and acceptance by way of legalizing those marriages and adoption which can potentially affect the next generation that is under their care.

They are what they are and just leave it at that.

Trying to challenge legislation and maybe adopting a child should not be tolerated.

That's what I'm trying to say.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086410https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086410Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:43:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:37:17 GMT]]>

pirate:
Sun_2010:

I dont know,

It doesnt even have to be genetic .

I am just asking...like
Are transgenders natural?
Is disorders natural?

What is \"natural\"? and what is \"not natural\" ?

If somebody was born with both sets of reproductive organs, I would say it is 'natural'. And if people call that a 'disorder', I would say it is still 'natural'.

Likewise, even if it is a 'manufacturing defect' or a 'lemon', I would think in the context of this discussion, it is 'natural'. We should not be discriminating against somebody merely because he/she is a 'lemon' (pardon the derogatory terminology).

So, in my opinion, if homosexuality is genetic, a genetic mutation or something that developed in the womb or during childbirth, it would be right to call it \"born this way\", ie. natural. The question is, is there any scientific evidence that supports the argument that it is? Hence my question on whether there is any research on whether homosexuals have different hormone levels from heterosexuals.

Whatever they are, we can respect it as it occurred and let them be what they are or became.

But we should not tolerance they spreading of their beliefs and \"preferences\" to pollute the society and distort the values.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086408https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086408Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:37:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:32:53 GMT]]>

Sun_2010:
limlim:

No leh.. my reason is neither.


It is against nature and threatened the survival of the species if such unnatural practice were to gain widespread acceptance by the general community and cause undesirable influence on the offspring.. Such dangerous behavior must be nipped in the bud and prevented from polluting the rest of the population.

What \"undesirable influence\"? How is it \"polluting\"?

Let me state that i find public gay behaviour repulsive. I need justification for that other than a blanket statement that \"its unnatural\"
How to define unnatural? The small facet of nature we see doesnt make us experts of nature.

So same sex union is not un-natural to you? ok then. Well, of coz you're entitled to your views.

Polluting bcoz it can potentially kill off a species' existence. Undesirable bcoz it effectively disabled reproduction and disallow continuation of the species.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086406https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086406Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:32:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:28:07 GMT]]>

ChiefKiasu:
That's a good question. But what if it is purely psychological? That would be hard to measure. Maybe it is like psychological impotence, or erectile dysfunction, where the problem is due to thoughts or feelings rather than something physical. How then should we classify such people? They may not be naturally born this way, but their personal experiences created the situation.

Then they are not 'born that way'. I suppose we as a society have to be very careful to satisfy ourselves that their psychological state cannot influence children under their care to also develop this psychological state before we allow them to adopt. After all, we can't just allow anybody with a psychological condition to suka suka anyhow adopt children, can we?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086349https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086349Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:28:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:36:40 GMT]]>

pirate:
When people say that gays are born this way, what do they mean? Do they mean:


(1) it is genetic? In which case, why has this particular (but as yet unidentified) gene sequence not bred itself into extinction yet?

(2) it is a genetic mutation?

(3) it is a condition that developed in the womb, like a hole in the heart?

(4) it is a condition that developed during childbirth, like organ damage due to lack of oxygen during delivery?

Is anybody aware of any other biological way to be \"born this way\"?
I studied biology . With my limited understanding, if the gays really can inherit, there will be no gays soon or later. How come nowadays it seems more and more? :?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086323https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086323Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:36:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:43:24 GMT]]>

limlim:
It is against nature and threatened the survival of the species if such unnatural practice were to gain widespread acceptance by the general community and cause undesirable influence on the offspring.. Such dangerous behavior must be nipped in the bud and prevented from polluting the rest of the population.

I'm surprised by your statement.

Do you mean that once you have encountered enough gay behaviour/culture, you will feel like being gay too?

A logical extension to that is that if one lives on a farm and watch the animals breed, one will be tempted to engage in acts of bestiality too? :scratchhead:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086139https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086139Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:43:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:24:33 GMT]]>

pirate:
If somebody was born with both sets of reproductive organs, I would say it is 'natural'. And if people call that a 'disorder', I would say it is still 'natural'.


Likewise, even if it is a 'manufacturing defect' or a 'lemon', I would think in the context of this discussion, it is 'natural'. We should not be discriminating against somebody merely because he/she is a 'lemon' (pardon the derogatory terminology).

So, in my opinion, if homosexuality is genetic, a genetic mutation or something that developed in the womb or during childbirth, it would be right to call it \"born this way\", ie. natural. The question is, is there any scientific evidence that supports the argument that it is? Hence my question on whether there is any research on whether homosexuals have different hormone levels from heterosexuals.
That's a good question. But what if it is purely psychological? That would be hard to measure. Maybe it is like psychological impotence, or erectile dysfunction, where the problem is due to thoughts or feelings rather than something physical. How then should we classify such people? They may not be naturally born this way, but their personal experiences created the situation.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086127https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086127Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:24:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:41:06 GMT]]>They are just wired differently, just like asd, ADHD…

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086070https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086070Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:41:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:31:32 GMT]]>

Sun_2010:
I dont know,

It doesnt even have to be genetic .

I am just asking...like
Are transgenders natural?
Is disorders natural?

What is \"natural\"? and what is \"not natural\" ?
If somebody was born with both sets of reproductive organs, I would say it is 'natural'. And if people call that a 'disorder', I would say it is still 'natural'.

Likewise, even if it is a 'manufacturing defect' or a 'lemon', I would think in the context of this discussion, it is 'natural'. We should not be discriminating against somebody merely because he/she is a 'lemon' (pardon the derogatory terminology).

So, in my opinion, if homosexuality is genetic, a genetic mutation or something that developed in the womb or during childbirth, it would be right to call it \"born this way\", ie. natural. The question is, is there any scientific evidence that supports the argument that it is? Hence my question on whether there is any research on whether homosexuals have different hormone levels from heterosexuals.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086059https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086059Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:31:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:13:52 GMT]]>

Sun_2010:
pirate:

[quote=\"Sun_2010\"]Having read the other pages here, I found the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution incorrect. Law of evolution holds good for species, not for sections of species.


So, maybe it is caused by recessive genes?

I dont know,
It doesnt even have to be genetic .

I am just asking...like
Are transgenders natural?
Is disorders natural?

What is \"natural\"? and what is \"not natural\" ?[/quote]They are just different. To be different from the norm, there is a social price to pay.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086036https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086036Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:13:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:44:52 GMT]]>

pirate:
Sun_2010:

Having read the other pages here, I found the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution incorrect. Law of evolution holds good for species, not for sections of species.


So, maybe it is caused by recessive genes?

I dont know,
It doesnt even have to be genetic .

I am just asking...like
Are transgenders natural?
Is disorders natural?

What is \"natural\"? and what is \"not natural\" ?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086004https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1086004Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:44:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:38:55 GMT]]>

Sun_2010:
Having read the other pages here, I found the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution incorrect. Law of evolution holds good for species, not for sections of species.

So, maybe it is caused by recessive genes?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085997https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085997Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:38:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:32:08 GMT]]>

limlim:
No leh.. my reason is neither.


It is against nature and threatened the survival of the species if such unnatural practice were to gain widespread acceptance by the general community and cause undesirable influence on the offspring.. Such dangerous behavior must be nipped in the bud and prevented from polluting the rest of the population.
What \"undesirable influence\"? How is it \"polluting\"?

Let me state that i find public gay behaviour repulsive. I need justification for that other than a blanket statement that \"its unnatural\"
How to define unnatural? The small facet of nature we see doesnt make us experts of nature.

I had a boss who was gay and I was apprehensive before I met him. But as I worked with him I really admired not just the man's capabilities, but the fact he was a conscientious and principled person . But when I saw his partner and their interaction, it was not comfortable feeling. That in itself doesnt give me the right to be judgmental, imho.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085988https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085988Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:32:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:20:54 GMT]]>No leh… my reason is neither religion nor "feeling not right".


It is against nature and threatened the survival of the species if such unnatural practice were to gain widespread acceptance by the general community and cause undesirable influence on the offspring… Such dangerous behavior must be nipped in the bud and prevented from polluting the rest of the population.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085977https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085977Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:20:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:20:18 GMT]]>

ammonite:


Looking at the gays and lesbians I know, I do think they contribute to the well being of the entire specie. Looking after the young is very resource intensive, and gay relatives can help out because they do not have young of their own. In other species, not all the females will mate and have children and instead they help to look after the young of the dominant female. Survival of the fittest TEAM.

I do not have the time to look after my elderly grandmother because of my children. But my gay relatives can and do take her for outings and medical appointments. I appreciate that.

And yes, I can see it skipping across generations. There are some for whom environmental factors predominate, but it does not change the fact that it is definitely genetically inherent for others.

Peace. :xedfingers:
Let me state that I am neither for or against. I just like good arguments.
But maybe I am a bit biased towards the underdogs.


Liked this perspective.

Having read the other pages here, I found the argument that homosexuality is unnatural because gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution incorrect. Law of evolution holds good for species, not for sections of species.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085976https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085976Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:20:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:13:32 GMT]]>

3Boys:
Put simply, there are genes, and there are things that influence genes (epigenetics). Genes are fixed, they are passed down from your parents. Epigenes may be influenced by environmental factors, including conditions in the womb.


For instance, 2 identical twins in the uterus, one has an issue with placental blood supply, and has growth issues, and is underweight at birth, and the other is normal weight.

Their genes are the same, but their genetic programming has been set differently due to their early life experience.

Their health outcomes in childhood and adulthood can be very different. The underweight twin becomes at greater risk for all manners of things like obesity and diabetes.
Put even more simply,
pirate:
(3) it is a condition that developed in the womb, like a hole in the heart?

(4) it is a condition that developed during childbirth, like organ damage due to lack of oxygen during delivery?
Put even lagi more simply,
AC_Power:
So meaning homosexuals are what we call \"lemon\"? Product with a manufacturing defect?
Anybody did any research on whether homosexuals have different levels of testosterone, oestrogen, progesterone or other hormones from heterosexuals?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085967https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085967Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:13:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:06:39 GMT]]>Genes/Epigenes = Predisposition? Yes


Predisposition = Destiny? I'm not so sure.


A book I found to be quite interesting. <http://www.amazon.com/Playing-God-Genetic-Determinism-Freedom/dp/0415915228>

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085963https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085963Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:06:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:22:57 GMT]]>

EthanEthan:
WeiHan:

[quote=\"EthanEthan\"]

For your information, those theories you have mentioned put forward by researchers , who were gay themselves.

hardly credible from a neutral point of view

Some maybe gays but many are not. Scientific people work based on scientific curiosity values, not political agenda. As long as they published their works through proper journal, it will peered reviewed through proper procedures. It is 100 times better than people forming their own personal belief.


You do seemed to be extremely interested in gay research...[/quote]No need for innuendos lah

Honestly most of us are ignorant about homosexuality. Our main defense is either religion or \"it doesnt feel right\" or both.

This is a good discussion if we keep to facts supported by valid publications , then we could all benefit.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085912https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085912Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:22:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:21:38 GMT]]>

EthanEthan:
WeiHan:

[quote=\"winchester\"]

The other conclusion is that homosexuality is indeed inborn but because it has not become extinct, following evolution theory, it is not weak but has a role in the grand biological scheme.


Your hypothesis is flawed...gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution

[/quote]Looking at the gays and lesbians I know, I do think they contribute to the well being of the entire specie. Looking after the young is very resource intensive, and gay relatives can help out because they do not have young of their own. In other species, not all the females will mate and have children and instead they help to look after the young of the dominant female. Survival of the fittest TEAM.

I do not have the time to look after my elderly grandmother because of my children. But my gay relatives can and do take her for outings and medical appointments. I appreciate that.

And yes, I can see it skipping across generations. There are some for whom environmental factors predominate, but it does not change the fact that it is definitely genetically inherent for others.

Peace. :xedfingers:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085864https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085864Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:21:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:01:55 GMT]]>

WeiHan:
winchester:

[quote=\"EthanEthan\"]According to Darwin's theory of evolution on the survival of the fittest, IF homosexuality is indeed in born, they would be extinct long time ago


good point bringing up darwin as \"natural\" order of things.

Your conclusion is only one possible conclusion.

The other conclusion is that homosexuality is indeed inborn but because it has not become extinct, following evolution theory, it is not weak but has a role in the grand biological scheme.[/quote]Or, it could be as simple as the fact that nature has not found a way to eliminate occurrence of defects in the manufacturing process.. :evil:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085851https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085851Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:01:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:49:51 GMT]]>

EthanEthan:
WeiHan:



Some maybe gays but many are not. Scientific people work based on scientific curiosity values, not political agenda. As long as they published their works through proper journal, it will peered reviewed through proper procedures. It is 100 times better than people forming their own personal belief.


You do seemed to be extremely interested in gay research...

What makes you think so? My research is much deeper and broader in many other areas.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085807https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085807Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:49:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:48:53 GMT]]>

Harlequin:
WeiHan:

[quote=\"Winchester]


good point bringing up darwin as \"natural\" order of things.

Your conclusion is only one possible conclusion.

The other conclusion is that homosexuality is indeed inborn but because it has not become extinct, following evolution theory, it is not weak but has a role in the grand biological scheme.

EthanEthan:
Your hypothesis is flawed...gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution
:goodpost: :goodpost: EthanEthan.

.... Maybe that's why there are people first by lobbying to legalize surrogacy?
.
.
.

2 daddies (or 2 mummies) to a child that can only have one biological father/mother even through surrogacy.... what'd it lead to?? think further and go deeper, it's no longer just \"personal preference\" anymore... We, owe our duty towards the well being and the continuity of our species.

.
.
.

And, I don't think that all homosexual are in born, many \"switch path\" mid way in life after certain \"setback\", in a way I would say a big part of homosexuality are due to some sort of mental/psychological outbreak.[/quote][/quote]


IN many studies, they have found a strong correlations of gays being linked to broken families or in families where the dad was \"absent\" i.e bo-chap, died when the child was v young, abusive e.t.c

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085805https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085805Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:48:53 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to the gay agenda: same sex marriage and adoption on Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:45:21 GMT]]>

EthanEthan:
WeiHan:



Your conclusion is only one possible conclusion.

The other conclusion is that homosexuality is indeed inborn but because it has not become extinct, following evolution theory, it is not weak but has a role in the grand biological scheme.


Your hypothesis is flawed...gays couple cannot reproduce....they would be extinct by the laws of evolution

It is very clever and can stay dormant and express itself again in leap generations.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085801https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/1085801Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:45:21 GMT