Awareness of gay issues in S'pore: A political perspective
-
Legal issues are always linked to the housing policies.. For straights, the marriage itself takes care of legal issues.. For gays, we need to be more careful with such issues.. Gotta draw an explicit will real soon..
legal update on revised housing policies in s'pore
By Thomas Ng
Fridae's legal columnist, Thomas Ng, provides an update on policy changes which allow non-related persons to jointly purchase private residential properties using their pension funds and how it can benefit same-sex couples.
On 19th July 2005, Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development made an announcement in Parliament in his Ministerial Statement on Policy Changes Affecting The Property Market which has a direct effect on the issue of gay and lesbian couples.
He announced that non-related singles would be allowed to use their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings to jointly purchase private residential property with immediate effect. Prior to this, non-related parties were not allowed to use their CPF savings jointly in the purchase of private properties. Previously, only joint owners who are immediate family members (i.e., spouse, children, siblings and grand-parents) may utilise their CPF monies in the purchase of a property.
With the relaxation of this rule, gay and lesbian couples who wish to purchase private property jointly, may now use their CPF savings. In the past, while there was no restriction to 2 unrelated persons buying private property in joint names, they could not utilise their CPF savings in the purchase. Well, now they can!
As there appears to be no restriction on the use of CPF savings by non-Singaporeans, it means that non-related singles, Singaporean or not, would be allowed to use their CPF savings to jointly purchase private residential property.
Of course, certain issues will inevitably arise when 2 unmarried persons purchase property together. E.g., how will my share in the property be determined if I break up with my partner? How can I ensure that my partner gets my share in the property when I die?
Basically, your share in the property will be determined by the proportion of your financial contribution to the purchase of the property itself. If you and your partner break up, the both of you can decide to sell the property and split the net sale proceeds in accordance to the proportion of each partyÂ’s financial contribution. Alternatively, one party could also buy out the other partyÂ’s share at market value. If both parties cannot agree on what to do, there may be a stale-mate. While one party is entitled to sell his share to another 3rd party, no one would want to buy part of a property. While it is possible to apply to Court to partition the property, again, no one would want to buy part of a property. So, itÂ’s really in both partiesÂ’ best interest to talk and come to an agreement on how to deal with the property even if the break-up is so acrimonious that you want to spit in the face you used to adore.
Now, many will ask : how can I make sure my partner inherits my share in the property when I die? Well, you should make a will stating who the beneficiaries to your estate will be after your death. Basically, the will sets out who inherits your existing assets and only comes into operation upon your death. If you die without leaving a Will, you are said to die intestate. Your property and assets will be distributed according to the rules of intestacy. The rules set out the beneficiaries of the estate, the proportion in which they will inherit and the order of priority that a person has or the next-of-kin have to administer the estate of the deceased. Here, next-of-kin means surviving family members. Your partner who is of the same sex and is not related to you will not qualify as the next-of-kin.
You could also determine that your partner inherits your share in the property by the manner in which the both of you hold the property. You and your partner can hold the property as joint tenants. Joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership where upon the death of one joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant inherits the entire interest in the property. This is called the right of survivorship. Because of this right, a joint tenant cannot give away his interest in a will. His interest in the property will automatically go to the surviving joint tenant.
Alternatively, you and your partner could hold the property as tenants-in-common. This means that they own the property in undivided shares e.g., 50-50 or 60-40. There is no right of survivorship. Upon the death of one party, the share which he/she owns will go to his estate to be divided according to his will or the rules of intestacy, if there is no will. -
Yes.. the 4th country to accept gay marriage.. Canada! Canada is less strict with their marriage red-tapes.. If you see getting married as a symbolic event to announce your monogomous relationship, Canada will provide the service.. Even though the marriage cert will not be recognised elsewhere in the world..
canada becomes 4th country to recognise gay marriage
By News Editor
Canada has become the fourth nation – after Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain – to grant full legal rights to same-sex couples after a landmark bill was signed into law.
CanadaÂ’s Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation 47-21 late on Tuesday despite fierce opposition from conservative politicians and from religious groups who portrayed it as an attack on organised religion.
Prime Minister Paul Martin
The law came into power on Wednesday after years of court battles and debate that divided families, religious groups and political parties. The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, vigorously opposed the legislation.
The new legislation grants gays and lesbians the right to full civil marriages however religious officials would not be obliged to marry same-sex couples.
Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government said it had to draw up the legislation to allow same-sex marriages across the country after courts in eight of the 10 provinces ruled that a heterosexual-only definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage.
In a speech addressing the House of Commons on February 16, 2005, Martin quoted the British Columbia Court of Appeal: "Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships... falls short of true equality."
Canadian residency requirements are less strict than those in other countries that allow gay marriage resulting in gay men and lesbians travelling to Canada to get married despite the unions not being recognised in the couples' home countries. -
The UK isn't doing too bad in this department. Civil partnerships, which were introduced in Dec 2004, allows same sex partners to enter into civil partnerships. This has almost exactly the same legal effect and a marraige. It is gay marriage in all but name.
-
Which is the most ironic.. Some people claimed that the legal system in Singapore is harsh against gays because we had inherited the legal system from UK.. However, UK had progressed with regards to this issue, but in Singapore, we are still stagnant in this area.. A lack of political awareness?Originally posted by lwflee:The UK isn't doing too bad in this department. Civil partnerships, which were introduced in Dec 2004, allows same sex partners to enter into civil partnerships. This has almost exactly the same legal effect and a marraige. It is gay marriage in all but name.
Some might argue from the perspective of traditional Asian values.. But then, you can find homosexual activities throughout China's long history.. So why the limitation.. -
Homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter, does not have anything to do with values, Esatern or Western. It is about a fundamental human right to exersise a natural form of sexuality, homosexuality being one as has been proven by research in nuroscience. Homophobias will always be able to concoct absurd reasons to oppose homosexuality whether on religious or moral grounds, when the truth is that sexuality has nothing do with religion or morality. Again, as I said, it has to do with human right, denial of which betokens benightedness and barbarianism.Originally posted by earthlings73:Which is the most ironic.. Some people claimed that the legal system in Singapore is harsh against gays because we had inherited the legal system from UK.. However, UK had progressed with regards to this issue, but in Singapore, we are still stagnant in this area.. A lack of political awareness?
Some might argue from the perspective of traditional Asian values.. But then, you can find homosexual activities throughout China's long history.. So why the limitation.. -
For those still thinking of reporting to the authorities, you can save the trouble..
TODAY's report IndigNation.. Quite glad that they just do factual reporting without adding their 2 cents (usually anti-gay sentiments)..
TODAY newspaper: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/64017.asp
Gays press their case with IndigNation
Pride Month launched in Singapore to seek equal rights
Friday • July 29, 2005
FRIDAE.COM'S popular Nation parties may have been banned, but this hasn't deterred the gay and lesbian community in Singapore from asserting their place as citizens of the country.
They will be marking Singapore's 40th anniversary with "IndigNation" — Singapore's first gay and lesbian Pride Month, which will run until Aug 26.
"IndigNation is a gay community response to this ban, as well as to censorship of publications, such as Manazine, serving this community.
"Gays and lesbians are indignant over what these say about their rights and their place in this nation," said playwright Russell Heng.
Without defying any laws, the community will seek to make its point through the avenues available to it.
The events planned over the course of the month include Martin Loh's painting exhibition at Utterly Art gallery, called Cerita Budak-Budak (Children's Stories).
Mr Loh is an openly gay artist who is known for his male erotic and Peranakan imagery.
There will also be a talk by Dr Tan Chong Kee on same-sex love in classical Chinese literature, while Dr Heng will share his insights on the areas in Singapore frequented by the gay community two decades ago.
"Many of the events were already in the works, some were planned and then it all came together.
"We realised there's not a single force or instigator behind it, which shows that there is a desire to respond to this (the ban) in the community," said Mr Alex Au, co-founder of gay rights group People Like Us.
In recognition of Singapore's 40 years of independence, Mr Au will be heading a forum on "the national and the personal".
The forum will provide a space to talk about nationhood and issues other than those just pertaining to gay and lesbian rights.
"The issues might be completely unrelated to being gay or the community. But I have as much of a right to talk about this country's history as anyone else," added Mr Au.
People Like Us member, Mr Charles Tan, added: "This is a form of community action. It is really at the grassroots level, which is what we want to emphasise."
The Pride Month will wrap up with a party on Aug 26, hosted by Adventurers Like Us (Adlus), a Singapore Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered outdoor and sports group.
"The Adlus bash is definitely not on the scale of the Nation party and it is not a public event.
"It is for our own members, to celebrate our sixth anniversary. We're not even expecting that many people!" said Adlus member Nicholas Lum. — Vinita Ramani -
Here comes Straits Times' report
The Straits Times:
July 29, 2005
No party, so gays plan to hold seven events
By Arlina Arshad
GAYS and lesbians in Singapore are planning a month-long programme of events in response to the banning of the annual Nation gay party, which is usually held every August.
Under the banner IndigNation, the planned programme comprises seven events by gay activist groups and individuals. It kicked off yesterday with a four-day exhibition of children's book illustrations by artist Martin Loh.
Other events include a talk on classical Chinese literature, a poetry recital and a forum.
The programme will end on Aug 26.
There is no official committee organising the festival, said Mr Alex Au of activist group People Like Us, adding: 'It's very grassroots. Different people are organising different events.'
The organisers are: People Like Us, bible study group Safehaven, sports group Adlus and individuals including Dr Tan Chong Kee, activist and academic Russell Heng, artist Martin Loh and poet Dominic Chua.
IndigNation was organised after the Nation party, billed as Asia's largest gay celebration and held here annually since 2001, was banned. Police here declared it 'contrary to public interest' and denied organiser Fridae.com, an online gay network, a public entertainment licence. The event will now be held in Phuket in November.
'The gay community is indignant and extremely unhappy. All the talk about society opening up is just empty words,' said Mr Au. He stressed that the campaign was not a retaliation.
Fridae.com chief executive Stuart Koe also insisted that the online portal 'did not organise nor call for' the festival.
Commenting on the events, Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC Sin Boon Ann said the groups and individuals are free to speak as long as they are 'mindful that our nation has certain constraints, boundaries'. He added: 'There is freedom of speech here as long as speakers don't incite violence and are sensitive to the views of others.'
When contacted, the police said none of the event organisers has applied for a public entertainment licence with the police or the Media Development Authority. A police spokesman said: 'Public entertainment activities, unless otherwise exempted, require a permit.
'The licensing authorities will have to assess activities on a case-by-case basis before deciding if an event can be approved.'
Dr Heng, who plans to speak at one of the events, said he had not applied for a licence because Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said in his National Day Rally speech last year that licences would not be needed for talks that are held indoors and do not cover subjects of race or religion. -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
A new event to be held in conjunction with Event 5
Event 5
[b]Where Queens Ruled!
A History of Gay Venues in Singapore
By Russell Heng
Today we head to the internet and a cluster of clubs, saunas and Maxwell Market to be with one another. But where did gay men and lesbians go before? What was gay life like 40 years ago? Where exactly did queens go to reign? Come and hear activist, academic and out gay man Russell Heng share his walk through gay history in Singapore.
[/b]
Same-Sex Love In Classical South Asian Literature (in English)
By Sheo S. Rai
We constantly hear that homosexuality is an impurity invading Asia from the West. In this session, Mr. Rai questions this notion that same-sex love is contrary to Asian culture. He will trace and explore various ancient classical texts from South Asia particularly, India, that touch on same-sex love demonstrating that it has existed as an integral part of our Asian heritage and life. -
I bieleve only a very small minority of ppl would advocate discrimination against homo.But that doesn't mean homosexuality is right.In fact,it is wrong.But homo would hate me when i say this.
-
allow me to refer you to the appropriate thread to show your continual hatred against gays:Originally posted by PRP:I bieleve only a very small minority of ppl would advocate discrimination against homo.But that doesn't mean homosexuality is right.In fact,it is wrong.But homo would hate me when i say this.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=144859 -
Among heterosexual few people would advocate discrimination against gays but almost all cannot accept homosexual act! How you term homophobias I don't care.Originally posted by dreameryb:Homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter, does not have anything to do with values, Esatern or Western. It is about a fundamental human right to exersise a natural form of sexuality, homosexuality being one as has been proven by research in nuroscience. Homophobias will always be able to concoct absurd reasons to oppose homosexuality whether on religious or moral grounds, when the truth is that sexuality has nothing do with religion or morality. Again, as I said, it has to do with human right, denial of which betokens benightedness and barbarianism.
Values give us dignity and pride in our being and moral values denotes our responsibilities in families which we regards as the basic element of society. Religions are the acceptance of a God which set the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values. Nobody is forcing you to accept the same standards or the same values but we do not "concort absurb reasons to oppose homosexuality"!! If you do not speak out of ignorance or arrogance, at least show some respect for our human right to our own religion and our own moral values.
Sexual act with no value is no difference from the natural instinct for sex, which is in all animals. -
You better watch your back. One day, there will be a reverse takeover. Atobe has already highlighted it in the "moderate muslim" thread.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Among heterosexual few people would advocate discrimination against gays but almost all cannot accept homosexual act! How you term homophobias I don't care.
Values give us dignity and pride in our being and moral values denotes our responsibilities in families which we regards as the basic element of society. Religions are the acceptance of a God which set the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values. Nobody is forcing you to accept the same standards or the same values but we do not "concort absurb reasons to oppose homosexuality"!! If you do not speak out of ignorance or arrogance, at least show some respect for our human right to our own religion and our own moral values.
Sexual act with no value is no difference from the natural instinct for sex, which is in all animals. -
Precisely! (see sentences highlighted in red)..Originally posted by sgdiehard:Among heterosexual few people would advocate discrimination against gays but almost all cannot accept homosexual act! How you term homophobias I don't care.
Values give us dignity and pride in our being and moral values denotes our responsibilities in families which we regards as the basic element of society. Religions are the acceptance of a God which set the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values. Nobody is forcing you to accept the same standards or the same values but we do not "concort absurb reasons to oppose homosexuality"!! If you do not speak out of ignorance or arrogance, at least show some respect for our human right to our own religion and our own moral values.
Sexual act with no value is no difference from the natural instinct for sex, which is in all animals.
The funny thing is, you sentences will still be valid if the word homosexual is replaced by heterosexual or christians or any other demographic categories..
Hence, if you intend to discuss moral issues related to religion, please use this thread:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=144859 -
Originally posted by SBS3641G:You better watch your back. One day, there will be a reverse takeover. Atobe has already highlighted it in the "moderate muslim" thread.
this is quite different. muslim community, moderate or radical, is a living cell that multiply and grow, hence the ability to reverse takeover. Gays society on its own will die of natural death.
I still watch my back though.
-
I do respect whatever religion people choose to believe in. I am merely saying that it is dangerous for religion to intrude on matters that are essentially secular because this sometimes encourages separatism. In the 1960s Southen America, integration of different races was most staunchly opposed by white Baptist preachers who cited the Bible, and now we see people fervently brandishing the Bible yet again to berate their fellow human beings that they perceive different. Religion certainly has its role in spiritual lives but not where it is irrelevant. Indiscriminately using religious convictions to sanction intolerance of the innocuous behavior of fellow human beings does not have its place in our world today.
Most ironically, however, is that certain religious institutions that purport to impart "the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values" cannot even be trusted to monitor their own behaviors. This is demonstrated by the numerous cases of child molestation by Catholic priests. Yet they still insist on teaching the rest of us a lesson on moral values related to sex. I say to these hypocrites: back off and clean your own backyard first.
Homosexuality is a natural form of human existence, the denial of which spells ignorance of the abundance of scientific research on human sexuality in the past few dacades. Human sexuality is not about values but about the basic right to exist, to love and to be loved. It is painful to see that certain people insist on taking away such a basic human right from their fellow human beings on sanctimonious and other pretentious grounds....Originally posted by sgdiehard:Among heterosexual few people would advocate discrimination against gays but almost all cannot accept homosexual act! How you term homophobias I don't care.
Values give us dignity and pride in our being and moral values denotes our responsibilities in families which we regards as the basic element of society. Religions are the acceptance of a God which set the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values. Nobody is forcing you to accept the same standards or the same values but we do not "concort absurb reasons to oppose homosexuality"!! If you do not speak out of ignorance or arrogance, at least show some respect for our human right to our own religion and our own moral values.
Sexual act with no value is no difference from the natural instinct for sex, which is in all animals. -
I just give an analogy to show why your view is wrong: A father told his son that taking sugar is not good for health.His son said his father didn't love him.Originally posted by earthlings73:allow me to refer you to the appropriate thread to show your continual hatred against gays:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=144859
Is it to say everyone should agree with the argument that there is no right or wrong about homosexuality?If one doesn't agree,he is a bigot?
Correction:
The word "sugar" should be changed to "sweets". -
repeated post
-
you forgot to add too much in front of sugar.. no one can totally abstain from sugar.. or else he will die.. ta da..Originally posted by PRP:I just give an analogy to show why your view is wrong: A father told his son that taking sugar is not good for health.His son said his father didn't love him.
Is it to say everyone should agree with the argument that there is no right or wrong about homosexuality?If one doesn't agree,he is a bigot?
as for your second para, no comments.. u r entitled to your opinion.. but pls use the thread i've highlighted.. -
okay.. a social political comment.. this i will reply..Originally posted by sgdiehard: this is quite different. muslim community, moderate or radical, is a living cell that multiply and grow, hence the ability to reverse takeover. Gays society on its own will die of natural death.
I still watch my back though.
if your argument is gays society will die of natural death.. arent you supporting the genetic theory of gays?
but wait, the genetic theory of gays is not so straight forward (pun not intended)..
through history, gays activities had been documented.. but the term homsexuality came about only in the 1800s.. which means, gays have been in existence since there's recorded history.. and how did the gay genes survive?
in Italy (the country of the pope, no less), a group of researchers found that aunties and uncles of gays have a tendency to produce more offsprings then straights.. this might be the mechanism how the gay gene is being passed down..
-
hiya.. first of all.. thx for your pro-gay stand, whether you are gay or straight..Originally posted by dreameryb:I do respect whatever religion people choose to believe in. I am merely saying that it is dangerous for religion to intrude on matters that are essentially secular because this sometimes encourages separatism. In the 1960s Southen America, integration of different races was most staunchly opposed by white Baptist preachers who cited the Bible, and now we see people fervently brandishing the Bible yet again to berate their fellow human beings that they perceive different. Religion certainly has its role in spiritual lives but not where it is irrelevant. Indiscriminately using religious convictions to sanction intolerance of the innocuous behavior of fellow human beings does not have its place in our world today.
Most ironically, however, is that certain religious institutions that purport to impart "the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values" cannot even be trusted to monitor their own behaviors. This is demonstrated by the numerous cases of child molestation by Catholic priests. Yet they still insist on teaching the rest of us a lesson on moral values related to sex. I say to these hypocrites: back off and clean your own backyard first.
Homosexuality is a natural form of human existence, the denial of which spells ignorance of the abundance of scientific research on human sexuality in the past few dacades. Human sexuality is not about values but about the basic right to exist, to love and to be loved. It is painful to see that certain people insist on taking away such a basic human right from their fellow human beings on sanctimonious and other pretentious grounds....
however, starting to talk abt religion will lead us back to the same old road.. =P
non-christians flame christians, christians flame gays, gays retaliate, christians flame non-christians, mod warns, flaming continues, mod closes the thread..
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=136051
but i do admit that the greatest opponent of gays is still religion.. if u r keen, pls provide your inputs here:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=144859
as to me views on values and morals (from scientific perspective), allow me some time to do research before i reply.. most of these research will be from psychological stand point.. -
Our belief governs how we live our lives. Looking at it from another way, it is the duty of the believers to live our lives according to the absolute and uncorrupted standards of God. We acknowledge the fact that we cannot live up to that standard, that is the nature of sinners, but we do not then discount the values set by God. If the authorities of the church were abused, that does not linvalidate the standard of God. If the word of God is used indiscriminately, that does not lower the standard of God. Having said that, if any man think they can live up to the standards of God, that does not make them God.Originally posted by dreameryb:I do respect whatever religion people choose to believe in. I am merely saying that it is dangerous for religion to intrude on matters that are essentially secular because this sometimes encourages separatism. In the 1960s Southen America, integration of different races was most staunchly opposed by white Baptist preachers who cited the Bible, and now we see people fervently brandishing the Bible yet again to berate their fellow human beings that they perceive different. Religion certainly has its role in spiritual lives but not where it is irrelevant. Indiscriminately using religious convictions to sanction intolerance of the innocuous behavior of fellow human beings does not have its place in our world today.
Most ironically, however, is that certain religious institutions that purport to impart "the absolute and uncorrupted standards for all values" cannot even be trusted to monitor their own behaviors. This is demonstrated by the numerous cases of child molestation by Catholic priests. Yet they still insist on teaching the rest of us a lesson on moral values related to sex. I say to these hypocrites: back off and clean your own backyard first.
Homosexuality is a natural form of human existence, the denial of which spells ignorance of the abundance of scientific research on human sexuality in the past few dacades. Human sexuality is not about values but about the basic right to exist, to love and to be loved. It is painful to see that certain people insist on taking away such a basic human right from their fellow human beings on sanctimonious and other pretentious grounds....
I can understand the anger against believers who were hypocrites, who abuse their religious power, ......, but the absolute nature of God is not disputable, it is either you believe or you don't. Religion is not a subject for discussion between those who believe and those who don't. If you don't believe in God, there is no need to worry about standards or values set by God, you don't have to agree with what we say about right or wrong, no matter what the scientists say. We believe in resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, .... not what scientists can prove.
Some scientists can say gay is born, but many scientists who are christians will tell you it is not and can be corrected. If homosexuality is a secular matter where the Bible is irrelevant, then don't ask christian for opinion. If gay wants an opinion from the church, then according to the Bible, homosexual act is pervert!! You don't have to believe, but what we believe is not "benightedness and barbarianism"!!
Gays, like all human being, have the right to exist, no question about that and no religion deny that. But how do gays want to be integration in a heterosexual society? Integration requires mutual respect. Race and religion are always the two most sensitive issues for social integration. Twisting the Bible, bashing the church is no way to improve the relationship for better social integration. -
Sigh.. I was too late to stop the flame..Originally posted by sgdiehard:Our belief governs how we live our lives. Looking at it from another way, it is the duty of the believers to live our lives according to the absolute and uncorrupted standards of God. We acknowledge the fact that we cannot live up to that standard, that is the nature of sinners, but we do not then discount the values set by God. If the authorities of the church were abused, that does not linvalidate the standard of God. If the word of God is used indiscriminately, that does not lower the standard of God. Having said that, if any man think they can live up to the standards of God, that does not make them God.
I can understand the anger against believers who were hypocrites, who abuse their religious power, ......, but the absolute nature of God is not disputable, it is either you believe or you don't. Religion is not a subject for discussion between those who believe and those who don't. If you don't believe in God, there is no need to worry about standards or values set by God, you don't have to agree with what we say about right or wrong, no matter what the scientists say. We believe in resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, .... not what scientists can prove.
Some scientists can say gay is born, but many scientists who are christians will tell you it is not and can be corrected. If homosexuality is a secular matter where the Bible is irrelevant, then don't ask christian for opinion. If gay wants an opinion from the church, then according to the Bible, homosexual act is pervert!! You don't have to believe, but what we believe is not "benightedness and barbarianism"!!
Gays, like all human being, have the right to exist, no question about that and no religion deny that. But how do gays want to be integration in a heterosexual society? Integration requires mutual respect. Race and religion are always the two most sensitive issues for social integration. Twisting the Bible, bashing the church is no way to improve the relationship for better social integration.
But as a good homo sapien, I will not retaliate.. but once again, please post in eternal hope.. the war between christians and non-christians is still raging.. but the issues are not related to gays anymore..
I will address only the last para. Yes, integration requires mutual respect. We saw SM Goh's statement in Times magazine as the first step towards the respect given to the gay comm. We saw PM Lee's decision to allow talks (other than religion and race) to be held a step towards allowing gays more free space, and hence IndigNation.
And the gay community is never against any other community. Because of the diversity within the community, which cuts across religion, race and economic powers (or intellects). What we've asked for is not a priviledge[/] but the [b]rights to be treated as any other Singapore citizens. -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
There is no war between Christians and non-Christians!! Heated and hitting under the belt exchanges called war? no, and nobody get special privileges or lose their rights after the exchanges. I do hope everybody gets some insight into what the others think, but nobody can force a religion onto others, at least not here. Thank God, the arguments there have no sign of any support for homosexuality!! I guess ppl, Christians and non-Christians are clear on their stand on homosexuality, there is no need to discuss.
Sigh.. I was too late to stop the flame..
But as a good homo sapien, I will not retaliate.. but once again, please post in eternal hope.. the war between christians and non-christians is still raging.. but the issues are not related to gays anymore..
I will address only the last para. Yes, integration requires mutual respect. We saw SM Goh's statement in Times magazine as the first step towards the respect given to the gay comm. We saw PM Lee's decision to allow talks (other than religion and race) to be held a step towards allowing gays more free space, and hence IndigNation.
And the gay community is never against any other community. Because of the diversity within the community, which cuts across religion, race and economic powers (or intellects). What we've asked for is not a [b]priviledge[/] but the [b]rights to be treated as any other Singapore citizens.[/b]
Any intention to discuss religion here? No, I just answered questions where there are raised!! The post started with “Benedict condemns gay marriages” giving gays and yr supporters much opportunity to bash the church and Christianity in general. Then the current thread started using the “political perspective” as disguise for free advertisement for gay issues. But then, Christian gay forum and workshop on Biblical Interpretation on homo are “political perspective”??
Allow me to quote from Pikamaster, “Thus, unless Christian uniques (to use the more politcally correct term) are not meant to follow the instructions of the Bible, which strangely enough means rejecting Christianity as a religious belief, then I suggest that you ignore this entire forum.”
You are not a Christian, you donÂ’t accept the Bible and you donÂ’t understand Christianity, so stop using as Christian, the Bible or Christianity for publicity or to support your own course!!
Thank you very much. -
genetic theory of gays?? how are genes passed down? reproduction through sex with an opposite sex, is it not the only natural way? and common sense! how do aunties and uncles of gays produce more offsprings with gays genes, unless they have the genes themselves, if they have the genes then how can they have sex with the opposite sex? Gays are born? May be, but is it natural, or sickness of the mind itself, a birth defect, a medical condition?Originally posted by earthlings73:okay.. a social political comment.. this i will reply..
if your argument is gays society will die of natural death.. arent you supporting the genetic theory of gays?
but wait, the genetic theory of gays is not so straight forward (pun not intended)..
through history, gays activities had been documented.. but the term homsexuality came about only in the 1800s.. which means, gays have been in existence since there's recorded history.. and how did the gay genes survive?
in Italy (the country of the pope, no less), a group of researchers found that aunties and uncles of gays have a tendency to produce more offsprings then straights.. this might be the mechanism how the gay gene is being passed down..
No more discussion for me. -
Ah.. that's why i suggested to dreamy to use the other thread too..Originally posted by sgdiehard:There is no war between Christians and non-Christians!! Heated and hitting under the belt exchanges called war? no, and nobody get special privileges or lose their rights after the exchanges. I do hope everybody gets some insight into what the others think, but nobody can force a religion onto others, at least not here. Thank God, the arguments there have no sign of any support for homosexuality!! I guess ppl, Christians and non-Christians are clear on their stand on homosexuality, there is no need to discuss.
Any intention to discuss religion here? No, I just answered questions where there are raised!! The post started with “Benedict condemns gay marriages” giving gays and yr supporters much opportunity to bash the church and Christianity in general. Then the current thread started using the “political perspective” as disguise for free advertisement for gay issues. But then, Christian gay forum and workshop on Biblical Interpretation on homo are “political perspective”??
Allow me to quote from Pikamaster, “Thus, unless Christian uniques (to use the more politcally correct term) are not meant to follow the instructions of the Bible, which strangely enough means rejecting Christianity as a religious belief, then I suggest that you ignore this entire forum.”
You are not a Christian, you donÂ’t accept the Bible and you donÂ’t understand Christianity, so stop using as Christian, the Bible or Christianity for publicity or to support your own course!!
Thank you very much.
And if I want to raise issues with the bible, I will do it in Eternal Hope too..