If you calls this as the liberalization then me more than happy to be dogmatic and biased. I have noticed this thing in your post someone not having same opinion and same thinking level then it is dogmatic and biased opinion this is the way you think?? What is proof that the studies that you have read are final or absolutely correct , may be they were done by the people who were bisexual, what is the authenticity those report?? india mein to baba ramdev bolta hai ki main inn gay/lesbian ko thik kar sakta hun dave k sath if you have any take him to him.
This is something that is not natural and people who support it are making all effort to prove that it is natural.
in foreign its very much common that girls get pregnant( that too at the age of 14-18) and have kids before marriage, that is also very much normal, will you allow your kids something like that?
I really appreciate your liberalization, you have compared the man coming out from caves to accepting gayism/lesbianism..great.
I dont have any issues in accepting the people but i simple dont like there sexual orientation that is all.
Let me ask a question to you, why you joined JATLAND when you have other site awhere you will find lot many people discussing the same things?
A. Those Who Do not Agree With Me Are Not Dogmatic or Wrong: They Only Have Different Views
I have not branded or judged any individual on the forum as dogmatic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Terminology We Use is Important: "GRANULARITY" of Terminology Is Equally Important To Avoid Misinterpretation - "Not White" does not mean "Black"
I have not said those who do not agree with my views are dogmatic. This is your interpretation which might "not be accurate" (Please note the terminology,
"not accurate" does not mean
"wrong").
Let me help you understand with an example. If I say something is not white, it automatically does not make that object 'extreme opposite' of white (i.e. black), that object could be neutral, colorless or transparent, many shades of gray or any color in the rainbow. If you automatically assume that by saying 'not white' I imply 'black' then thats your thought process, but I would not call your thought process wrong, I will term it 'not accurate and granular enough' in this specific point. Hope this clarifies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Using Emotionally Evocative Terminology To Make People Think (good or bad, pro or anti, thinking abt the issue first is a good start
Though, it is true that some times I am knowingly trying to use terms or statement that emotionally appeal to people or strike a chord (good or bad). Reason being is, I am just trying to make audience think with my argument, not necessarily agree with me.
You may say, people are wise enough to see through this, and I would readily agree but it is still a good way to reach out to the 'inner' thinking/feeling human in other people.
There might be other, better, ways to do it and I will be happy to listen and learn about those from you or other members.
If my arguments make people think, thats a good start for me, people can then undertake their own journey. Please refer to my text in Anjoo's post# 53.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. I Will Accept/Alter My Views Only If You Refute My Arguments With Verifiable Scientific Evidence (yet I will respect your right to have non-scientific arm chair opinion)
You have raised interesting (interesting doe snot mean right or wrong or valid, please note the terminology I use). I have at least presented the scientific evidences based on verifiable and repeatable studies.
If you are countering or questioning them, you are entitled to that opinion and I respect that entitlement and your right, but it will not sway me unless you provide me scientific evidence to refute my statement. If you believe in your refuting statements then dig out some evidence, I will be happy to review. Otherwise, its just an arm chair opinion. धुल में लट्ठ कोई बी मार सकता है, back your argument with evidence if you wish to take this discussion forward. Show me a counter study that study i have provided is wrong or show anotehr study that refutes the results of study.
Same thing about your argument about baba ramdev, I can not go out find gays and force them to go to baba ramdev and there are millions of people making such claims. it comes down to same thing again. Dont throw random claims on me. Show me a scientific study that verifies that baba ramdev can cure and then I will respond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Answer to Personal Question Posed to Me: Discussion Is About My Ideology/Attitude, Not About My Personal Life, yet I will answer this time.
E.1 Difference Between "Ideology We Subscribe To" versus "What We Practice"
You asked me some personal questions. There is a difference Between "Ideology We Subscribe To" versus "What We Practice".
First of All, this debate (शःस्त्रर्थ) it is not about my personal life. It is about ideology I subscribe to. So lets debate 'ideology' based on arguments backed up by scientific evidence. And then
determine the validity of the argument based on the evidence, regardless of the person putting forth the argument practices it or not, believes in it or not.
Its the scientific-evidence that should matter, not the person. Its not a personal matter of ego ke kaon sahi ha ya nahi.
If the person who is advocating and putting forth the argument does not practice the argument, then it makes the person hypocrite but the argument itself still remains valid based on the evidence. Then you can judge the person negatively but must judge the argument positively/valid
E.2 Question Of Personal Nature: Whose Business Is That? - I will make an exception here and answer it
As explained before, my personal life is no ones business (unless the person has created a personal rapport with me and posed the question in private), still I will make an exception here. Re: my offspring having child out of wed lock, I do not see a problem as long as they are of age where medically their body is mature enough to go through the process. My concern for my offspring will be about their happiness, safety, health and (if possible) financial security. Apart from that, if they do things that may not be social norms accepted by the 'majority', so be it. I will love them just the same, be proud of them as a parent, try to shield them from unnecessary guilt or undue pressure from others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What is Your Intent to Question My Presence on JL or My "So Called' Taboo Posts? - जिस तरा तू आया, नु इ में आया, भाई ना में ठेकेदार ना तू, सही बात से क नहीं 
Whats wrong in me joining JL or discussing taboo topic on JL?
Are you questioning my right to chose to join JL or my right to freedom or expression?
Bhai, I do not get you, please enlighten me as to the intent of your question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raam Ramm Bhai... Bhool Chook Hoi Ho Koi, Kimme Baat Ka Bura Laag Ja to 'ADVANCE Mei MAAFI' de diye, ... view may differ lekin our humane friend remains ... chaal pher ya lee eek jaffi ... pappi ja ke aapni GF te maang <toink> <toink> ... lol
) Brahmins. After all it is mythology.