Awareness of gay issues in S'pore: A political perspective
-
this seems like a spill over from eternal hope... i do hope that u will seperate both issues. coz thats wad i am doing now....Originally posted by HENG@:Again I might remind u that if THE HOLY BIBLE of the psychological field. If whatever stance inside wasn't the majority and conclusive view, i doubt that it would be included inside, and if it was, it wouldn't be considered THE HOLY BIBLE of the psychological field anymore.
once again ... i dun debate to win heng... i debate to have exchanges with people... very big difference.
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is THE book .. YES. what about your understanding of psychology; lets break it up now... clinical psychology, evolutionary psychology, the school of psycholoanalysis (this is a bit dodgy), social psyc, etc... the list goes on.
not all schools hold the DSM in such high esteem. the world of psychology 50 years ago saw homosexuality as a disease...... and put its test subjects under a lot of cruel tests...
sometimes it bothers me at how .. u only look for congruence or supporting material that is in congruence with your line of thought. A lot of the scholars know a whole deal more about homosexiality then u or me Heng. yet it's still so split. r u willing to see it from both sides or only your side?
i repeat again ... taking this outside religion ... i have no opinions on homosexuals. they have the rights as much as i have mine. -
yep... thats a little too simplistic... the main thing for the anti-homosexuals school of thought actually lies with twin studies. they couldnt find a statistically significant relationship between twins. their genetic creakdown is the same in this case... it does make u ponder. u have to question their methodology though ... there are vested interest from both sidesOriginally posted by earthlings73:no worries, ben.. i agree with the position that research has not been conclusive..
however, it's even more important to address the practicalities:
should someone advocate change therapy even when you still do not know for sure whether gays are borned or made?
even though psychologists do not know for sure whether gays are borned or made, most of them do not support change therapy..
however, do also note that they are more and more evidences pointing to a biological influence.. Traditional psychological paradigms (specifically, the psychodynamic traditions) supporting the nurture side of the equation argue that gays are cause by weak father role model and domineering mum.. however, such views have proven to be over simplistic..
Beyond the psychodynamic traditions, I have not seen any other theories supporting the nurture side of the argument..
personally.. i think it's a mix. both nature n nurture. i reckon some people are born with slightly more inclination. -
heng ah ... could we nring the religious stuff to EH pls... as a respect to other forumersOriginally posted by HENG@:let me point it out to u, it is far from undecided. It is not any different journal here. This medical book is THE HOLY BIBLE of the psychiatric, psychological, and sociological world.
Need I point out that in religion, it is far from decided too? there is a major split in most western countries' xtian community about this issue. -
If people wanna be gay..
be gay... if people wanna be straight let them be.
Whatever happened to choices? For homophobic men out there that think that gay men are gross and wanna crack onto them all the time. Take a look at yourself in the mirror. You're not a hot stud and gay men have standards too ya know. -
and besides, hetrosexuals are sloppy, smelly, slobs, hate bathing and shopping, grooming and basically anything more intellectual and deeper than staring at a tv screen, munching peanuts and tiger beer, watching 22 men chasing after a tiny ball
-
Hey, I bet you are guilty of that as well.Originally posted by vito_corleone:and besides, hetrosexuals are sloppy, smelly, slobs, hate bathing and shopping, grooming and basically anything more intellectual and deeper than staring at a tv screen, munching peanuts and tiger beer, watching 22 men chasing after a tiny ball 
-
sounds like my idea of a nice saturday night!!Originally posted by vito_corleone:staring at a tv screen, munching peanuts and tiger beer, watching 22 men chasing after a tiny ball -
Originally posted by Lingos:If people wanna be gay..
be gay... if people wanna be straight let them be.
Whatever happened to choices? For homophobic men out there that think that gay men are gross and wanna crack onto them all the time. Take a look at yourself in the mirror. You're not a hot stud and gay men have standards too ya know. This one I agree.. It took me around 1.5 yrs to find my current partner (a relationship of close to 2 yrs liao) after I came out.. =p
As much as it's against "conventional wisdom".. Not all gays are horny beasts wanting to screw every man on the street.. In fact, a lot of us are just as horny as other straight men.. -
Maybe they have been brought up to think that if someone can get screwed in the butt, anyone could. Who knows, they might have suffered intense sexual abuse as a child.Originally posted by earthlings73:As much as it's against "conventional wisdom".. Not all gays are horny beasts wanting to screw every man on the street.. In fact, a lot of us are just as horny as other straight men.. 
-
First of all, I agree with your views on DSM.. Specifically, a removal of homosexual disorders from DSM has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is borned or made..Originally posted by ben1xy:yep... thats a little too simplistic... the main thing for the anti-homosexuals school of thought actually lies with twin studies. they couldnt find a statistically significant relationship between twins. their genetic creakdown is the same in this case... it does make u ponder. u have to question their methodology though ... there are vested interest from both sides
personally.. i think it's a mix. both nature n nurture. i reckon some people are born with slightly more inclination.
It's just a signal that the psychological profession recognises that the homosexuality is not an abnormality.. gays can still function normally like any other straights.. a move to exclude homosexuality is a move to reduce discrimination..
BUT, the key issue (from psychology point of view) is still: "Can you change one's orientation?".. As a practitioner (as opposed to researcher), wouldnt that be a more pressing question to answer?
Ah.. Just in case you think I'm shouting.. Just wanna say that I enjoy reading and responding to queries on gay issues that do not touches on "moral" grounds.. it makes all of us learn and understand from each other.. -
Exactly hear hear Earthlings73.Originally posted by earthlings73: This one I agree.. It took me around 1.5 yrs to find my current partner (a relationship of close to 2 yrs liao) after I came out.. =p
As much as it's against "conventional wisdom".. Not all gays are horny beasts wanting to screw every man on the street.. In fact, a lot of us are just as horny as other straight men..
It's so hard for gay men to find a stable relationship! You straight men whinge about girls all the time. It's so MUCH HARDER for gay men!
Ya gotta deal with society thinking that you're so bent wrist poofter and that you lust after every arse on the street.
Geez..... Straight men are horny too and can get HIV like everyone else. But of course they take the moral high ground that they are "normal" and invincible to STDs. -
And they account for the bulk of HIV transmissions. These folks are a risk to our womenfolk.Originally posted by Lingos:Geez..... Straight men are horny too and can get HIV like everyone else. But of course they take the moral high ground that they are "normal" and invincible to STDs. -
Oh no..Originally posted by vito_corleone:and besides, hetrosexuals are sloppy, smelly, slobs, hate bathing and shopping, grooming and basically anything more intellectual and deeper than staring at a tv screen, munching peanuts and tiger beer, watching 22 men chasing after a tiny ball
I've kanna the "straight" disease then.. heh.. without the peanuts (ah.. too exp ) and beer..
This is a reverse discrimination that might still surface in a gay community.. However, there are efforts in the gay community to buck this trend..
Today, there's a concert organised by SPACES named "A Nation in Concert" which seek to gather funds for the "marginalised"..
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/entertainment/view/162432/1/.html
SPACES is started off by gays.. However, they do not market themselves as a gay entity.. But a charity group to help the disadvantaged.. Many volunteers in SPACES are gays but they are still helping the underpriviledged, whether they are gays or straights.. Who knows, this might be the best model for us all.. We are all Singaporeans, we help each and every other Singaporeans whether you are gay or straight.. -
A paragraph I stole from an email listing.. Hope Clarence wont mind
:
SPACES is a pro-diversity group. It is a group committed to bringing people of different backgrounds and experiences together to work together in an open environment for the betterment of society at large. While it was started by two gay people, namely my partner Han and myself, it was not intended to be membered primarily by gay people or to be primarily for the purpose of the gay community. The objective of SPACES is to bridge different communities together in OPENNESS in social service - all our projects involve building bridges between old-young, Malay-Indian-Chinese, gay-straight and poor-rich. We want to demonstrate that when we are open to diversity a tremendous creativity springs forth. -
nah .. i'm ok with ur arguements.Originally posted by earthlings73:BUT, the key issue (from psychology point of view) is still: "Can you change one's orientation?".. As a practitioner (as opposed to researcher), wouldnt that be a more pressing question to answer?
Ah.. Just in case you think I'm shouting.. Just wanna say that I enjoy reading and responding to queries on gay issues that do not touches on "moral" grounds.. it makes all of us learn and understand from each other..
anyway ... from a practitioner point of view .. i wouldn't know. From a counselling point of view ... u can guide the person. from a psychological pragmatic view .. i have to be honest .. i dunno!!
hahaa
but IMO.. its tough being a gay in s'pore ... there's a lot of social stigma, marginalisation, etc -
look, i don't get it. How can u say that it is still so split when its in a book accepted by the MAJORITY of their scientific field as THE last word on all topics of psychology?Originally posted by ben1xy:this seems like a spill over from eternal hope... i do hope that u will seperate both issues. coz thats wad i am doing now....
once again ... i dun debate to win heng... i debate to have exchanges with people... very big difference.
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is THE book .. YES. what about your understanding of psychology; lets break it up now... clinical psychology, evolutionary psychology, the school of psycholoanalysis (this is a bit dodgy), social psyc, etc... the list goes on.
not all schools hold the DSM in such high esteem. the world of psychology 50 years ago saw homosexuality as a disease...... and put its test subjects under a lot of cruel tests...
sometimes it bothers me at how .. u only look for congruence or supporting material that is in congruence with your line of thought. A lot of the scholars know a whole deal more about homosexiality then u or me Heng. yet it's still so split. r u willing to see it from both sides or only your side?
i repeat again ... taking this outside religion ... i have no opinions on homosexuals. they have the rights as much as i have mine.
im raising the bible here as a paradox. If as u xtians say, so many of u believe in it, so it must be right, why do u say otherwise about the DSMV-!V? -
glad that u know it. they can do without social ignorance and religious zealousy fanning the flames of bigotryOriginally posted by ben1xy:nah .. i'm ok with ur arguements.
anyway ... from a practitioner point of view .. i wouldn't know. From a counselling point of view ... u can guide the person. from a psychological pragmatic view .. i have to be honest .. i dunno!!
hahaa
but IMO.. its tough being a gay in s'pore ... there's a lot of social stigma, marginalisation, etc -
ok ... let's look back 30 yrs. that time homosexuality was considered an illness. it's not now. but u see.. unlike the bible... this is not an absolute. (pls do not go into a theological debate with me abt this)Originally posted by HENG@:look, i don't get it. How can u say that it is still so split when its in a book accepted by the MAJORITY of their scientific field as THE last word on all topics of psychology?
im raising the bible here as a paradox. If as u xtians say, so many of u believe in it, so it must be right, why do u say otherwise about the DSMV-!V?
and i have read thru heaps of twin studies that show that homosexuality might not be a gene thing (again... this is debatable... researchers have a vested interest). The few twin studies i read that have stuck out showed that it rarely uncovered a set of of twins that were both homosexuals? again.. the nature vs nurture debate (lets not get in there shall we).
with such evidence.. i can't convince myself thatits 100% genetic. u get what i mean.
then again... some homosexuals... are homosexuals because of lifestyle choices (i know a few lesbians that became lesbians due to male abuse) ...
to sum it all up. DSMV <-- written by people
Bible <-- Yes written by people.. but inspired by God and is absolute
pls again ... refrain from rebutting me abt the bible thingy.. coz i am explaining the question u raised abt the bible.
u see... the DSMV can be changed and corrected and edited or what so ever
the bible can't -
gosh............ u really think i am anti-homosexuals eh? i am notOriginally posted by HENG@:glad that u know it. they can do without social ignorance and religious zealousy fanning the flames of bigotry
i have homosexual friends .... and as long as there is mutual respect... i am cool abt it. -
twins are rarely both homosexuals because as u should know, even in identical twins, both have different finger prints. Also, u should know that identical twins brought up in exactly the same environment can turn out to have totally different personalities, and that identical twins seperated at birth and brought up hundreds of miles away from each other often can develop similiar personalities down to likes and dislikes. the evidence thus gleaned from twins alone is far from conclusive or clear cut. Also siblings brought up in the same family environment, who even go to the same schools, can often have hugely varying personalities and behaviours. I think using twins as a counter against homosexuality being genetic, is far from solid as an argument.Originally posted by ben1xy:ok ... let's look back 30 yrs. that time homosexuality was considered an illness. it's not now. but u see.. unlike the bible... this is not an absolute. (pls do not go into a theological debate with me abt this)
and i have read thru heaps of twin studies that show that homosexuality might not be a gene thing (again... this is debatable... researchers have a vested interest). The few twin studies i read that have stuck out showed that it rarely uncovered a set of of twins that were both homosexuals? again.. the nature vs nurture debate (lets not get in there shall we).
with such evidence.. i can't convince myself thatits 100% genetic. u get what i mean.
then again... some homosexuals... are homosexuals because of lifestyle choices (i know a few lesbians that became lesbians due to male abuse) ...
to sum it all up. DSMV <-- written by people
Bible <-- Yes written by people.. but inspired by God and is absolute
pls again ... refrain from rebutting me abt the bible thingy.. coz i am explaining the question u raised abt the bible.
u see... the DSMV can be changed and corrected and edited or what so ever
the bible can't
i have to raise the bible issue because while u think it is absolute, i think it is far from it. If the church can, in the past, add in new verses and books, and remove some others, that shows it to be subject to change, correction and edition as well. Anyway that is my view, and if u think the bible can't be corrected, then that is your view, but I won't accept it because the church has in the past made corrections to it.
As well, the DSMV, while it is subject to change, as u said, previously people HAVE already thought that homosexuality is down to nuture, but newer studies have shown that this is less and less likely, and that more and more research are showing it to be nature. while its not a 100% conviction, i think if its majority enuf to be accepted into the Last word in psychology, its good enuf for now. unless we have more evidence from future research showing very much otherwise, why should we believe otherwise? besides, for those lifestyle lesbians, sexuality being a deep rooted genetic thing, they will feel a sense of unfulfillment and end up going back to men themselves, without any help. or maybe they were bi to begin with. in any case, do u think we should try to "help" them all at the risk of some genetic homosexuals being screwed over at being made to seem "wrong" and thus end up being depressed? -
im metrosexual.Originally posted by iveco:Hey, I bet you are guilty of that as well. -
erm.. i think i am missing some parts here. if homosexuality is in your genes... wouldn't twin studies result in both siblings being homosexual?Originally posted by HENG@:twins are rarely both homosexuals because as u should know, even in identical twins, both have different finger prints. Also, u should know that identical twins brought up in exactly the same environment can turn out to have totally different personalities, and that identical twins seperated at birth and brought up hundreds of miles away from each other often can develop similiar personalities down to likes and dislikes. the evidence thus gleaned from twins alone is far from conclusive or clear cut. Also siblings brought up in the same family environment, who even go to the same schools, can often have hugely varying personalities and behaviours. I think using twins as a counter against homosexuality being genetic, is far from solid as an argument.
i think i moght be missing your point. could u rephrase it? -
ermm heng ah .. i'm catholic leh ... the catholic church didnt take away stuff (can we discuss this at EH??)Originally posted by HENG@:i have to raise the bible issue because while u think it is absolute, i think it is far from it. If the church can, in the past, add in new verses and books, and remove some others, that shows it to be subject to change, correction and edition as well. Anyway that is my view, and if u think the bible can't be corrected, then that is your view, but I won't accept it because the church has in the past made corrections to it. -
heng ah ... i have no problem with thisOriginally posted by HENG@:As well, the DSMV, while it is subject to change, as u said, previously people HAVE already thought that homosexuality is down to nuture, but newer studies have shown that this is less and less likely, and that more and more research are showing it to be nature. while its not a 100% conviction, i think if its majority enuf to be accepted into the Last word in psychology, its good enuf for now. unless we have more evidence from future research showing very much otherwise, why should we believe otherwise? besides, for those lifestyle lesbians, sexuality being a deep rooted genetic thing, they will feel a sense of unfulfillment and end up going back to men themselves, without any help. or maybe they were bi to begin with. in any case, do u think we should try to "help" them all at the risk of some genetic homosexuals being screwed over at being made to seem "wrong" and thus end up being depressed?
innocent till proven guilty is my stand. and i will give them the benefit of the doubt
-
Which cave did you climb out from?Originally posted by iveco:And they account for the bulk of HIV transmissions. These folks are a risk to our womenfolk.
And which religion bred such insidious and bigot views in you? Christianity? I think not for as they say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner".
Buddhism? Not from its historical record as a peaceful religion focussing on development of the self for the greater good.
Thank God you were not in Germany in 1940 for you'd no doubt have been an anti-semite bigot gassing the Jews on the belief that they were the transmitters of diseases and misfortune.
And talk about womenfolk, please. Do I smell some false sense of gentleman cavalier here?