Are gays and lesbians normal?

[iskul_bukol]

---

ok rman na sila. theyre supernatural.... mas talented....

*mahimo kang bato!* chedeeeeeng!!!!!

[ketllac]

thanks for the info...tunggod kay gi-accept na sa community ang homosexuality (though dili tanan) maung nahimong normal ug nausab ang list (DSM) nga giingon nimo. this is matter of acceptance sa community stating nga ang dili normal sauna normal na ron.these are just rules approved by the majority of people.acceptance doesn't mean your are normal. you are just accepted as who you are.

what im trying to say about "lesbians and gays has something to do with emotional and psychological standards deviating from it's normalities which manifest physically. " is kung lalaki ka you should act like one. dili kay imo choose nimo to feel nga babae ka which is not normal logically. but since we have the so called DSM, nahimo syang normal by acceptance to the community but never gyud sya nahimong normal by it's nature bai to the community.

mao ra nay akong gipasabot

I see. Thanks for the clarification and you have the point. Bisan gani ako wala miingon nga abnormal o normal ang homosexuality.ang ako lang is to check the criteria psychological man emotional, social/conventional o moral. Kay kaning tanan

Pero baliki gud imong post Bai naay flaw imo reasoning kay ikaw una ni appeal sa authority bay saying about the deviation from psychological/emotional standard nya wa ka credibility kay ang mas credible kining mang psychological community. but you have the point kay it doenst mean nga normal if its accepted byt the community.

Pero asa man ta modangop sa expert o sa opinion lang nato.? hehehehhe

Since you mentioned about nature again that naturalistic fallacy.

[killersmiles]

gays and lesbian are not normal...mga salot sa katilingban nagda og tigaw sa katawhan hinungdan sa mga sala..ang laki nga pobre makasala kay mangwarta sa bayot..ang bayi pud loodan na ang mga laki kay gfinger sa tomboy..

[bahiista]

I see. Thanks for the clarification and you have the point. Bisan gani ako wala miingon nga abnormal o normal ang homosexuality.ang ako lang is to check the criteria psychological man emotional, social/conventional o moral. Kay kaning tanan

Pero baliki gud imong post Bai naay flaw imo reasoning kay ikaw una ni appeal sa authority bay saying about the deviation from psychological/emotional standard nya wa ka credibility kay ang mas credible kining mang psychological community. but you have the point kay it doenst mean nga normal if its accepted byt the community.

Pero asa man ta modangop sa expert o sa opinion lang nato.? hehehehhe

Since you mentioned about nature again that naturalistic fallacy.

in some way or another i think we are on the same side. those words from my post were not meant to as what you interpret, it's the fact that i myself have observed. it's just simply saying that gays and lesbians are not normal in terms of emotions and mentality because they deny their true self and accepting the state of being whom they are not suppose to be.

[bahiista]

if the topic was about "the acceptance of the individuality of gays and lesbians to the community" DSM would be helpful. But the topic was "the individuality of gays and lesbians, is it normal?" (rephrased).

for me gays and lesbians are not normal based on who they are designed to be and it's not a "naturalistic fallacy".

[ketllac]

diha ang sayop nimo bai kay kaning mga credible nga authority like the APA apil na tanang aspesto hasta ang nature sa tawo bai. Again that is just your opinion contradicting the expertise sa authority. Can you give me your definition about nature and "ought to be". bisan unsa pai ihatag nimo nga defintion naay facts nga mo refute ana bai. Ing ana ka libog ang mo formulate ug criteria lakip na ang human behavior in general. Again I respect your opinion.

[bahiista]

bai ketlac this is to clarify my post lang...first and foremost, the thread was about normal ba ang gay/lesbo. I believe the TS wants to know kung "normal" ba in a natural way (masculine/feminine). Second the TS was asking "your" opinion, which make me assume "my" personal, wherein i don't need anybody's credentials.

I'm not familiar with APA, DSM or any organization pertaining to emotional/psychological matters.

"Ought to be"? Gays are ought to be boys. Lesbians are ought to be girls. That's what nature designed them to be. and that's what i meant when i said they deviate from the normal. And when i said "normal" i was referring to the root gender of human being which was male and female.

If you are asking my opinion kung normal and accepted ba ni sila karon sa atong community, yes they are. pero if pangutanon ko nimo kung normal ba ni sila on the basis of human gender, sad to say, no they are not ketlac and they will never be.

[ketllac]

Unsa man diay na imo post nga naturalistic fallacy man na. "Ought to be"? Gays are ought to be boys. Lesbians are ought to be girls.


If the premises merely describe the way that the world is then they say nothing about the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot establish any value judgement; you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

Arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The argument,
(1) Human being are basically man and woman only,
(2) Bahiista is a gay
(3) Bahiista is abnormal; the conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from the premises. This is invalid.

you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

let us check this example;

(1)As a gay the feeling to have an anal *** to the same *** is only natural

Therefore:
(2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling the need to have it.

This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy. The argument’s premise simply describes the way that the world is, asserting that it is natural to feel envious. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be. The argument’s conclusion, then, which is value judgement, cannot be supported by its premises.

Do you see that its a fallacy.

[bahiista]

bai ketlac i did not post pra mag argue or reasoning thus the term "fallacy" is not needed. ni post ko kay i want to share my opinion to the TS. but if that is "fallacy" with you so be it, i respect that. and i know you respect me as well, t'was posted above.

[ketllac]

bai ketlac i did not post pra mag argue or reasoning thus the term "fallacy" is not needed. ni post ko kay i want to share my opinion to the TS. but if that is "fallacy" with you so be it, i respect that. and i know you respect me as well, t'was posted above.

Sorry dude. bitaw wa lang ko lingaw ron. hehehehehe.. salamat sa talakayan. bye tulog sa ko.