Awareness of gay issues in S'pore: A political perspective
-
or rather, they added stuff to the original.Originally posted by ben1xy:ermm heng ah .. i'm catholic leh ... the catholic church didnt take away stuff (can we discuss this at EH??)
-
correlational studies do not imply causation...Originally posted by ben1xy:yup ! i agree on the infancy part. u sure like using the smoking example a lot eh? its true that there is no cause and effect... but the correlation of smoking and cancer is statistically significant (95%, alpha; 0.05.. i remember reading). its pretty difficult establishing cause and effect due to the difficulties in isolating the variables in the experiment.
something all of us will learn in statistics 101.
and if the sample size is huge enough, most r test will return with significant findings...
smoking and cancer is one of the best analogy I believe. If one believe that smoking causes cancer even though the causality has not been proven, I don't see how anyone cannot accept that there's a "HUGE" biological influences in gays, with all those scientific evidences being cited..
-
Nope. US is still anti-gays.Originally posted by ben1xy:are Americans pro or anti-homosexual? didn't the gay movement thing start from the states? any idea on that?
open dialogues are quite comical at times ... sometimes though, it gets ugly... and then the name calling starts .. oh well
There are 4 countries in the world that recognises gay marriage: Belgium, Holland, Spain and Canada. Other countries like UK use the term civil partnership to replace marriage. In US, even civil partnership is not avocated. In contrary to popular beliefs, US is really not the most liberal country in the world.
US has as terrible a "human rights" record as let's say China...
Yah, open dialogue can get too emotional if not well-moderated. Especially when it comes to controversial issues, when it forces people to take sides. -
not exactly... it was only in the 1500s i think that Judaism removed the detreonomicals from their book and the the protestants follwed suit. got to check with the folks at eternal hope for the details... aint too good at theologyOriginally posted by vito_corleone:or rather, they added stuff to the original. -
yes.. i know correlations doesn't = causation. i also agree with the sig. findings... most people that do up experiments always manipulate the stats ... i am one of those too!! lolOriginally posted by earthlings73:correlational studies do not imply causation...
something all of us will learn in statistics 101.
and if the sample size is huge enough, most r test will return with significant findings...
smoking and cancer is one of the best analogy I believe. If one believe that smoking causes cancer even though the causality has not been proven, I don't see how anyone cannot accept that there's a "HUGE" biological influences in gays, with all those scientific evidences being cited..
i have no problem with the smoking example la... but the smoking example is a little more 1 sided. i reckon most smokers also realise that smoking increases the risk of cancer. not that it stops them from smoking.. but .. hahaa
but jokes aside.. wads ur take on the nature vs nurture arguement? -
the same reason why identical twins have different fingerprintsOriginally posted by ben1xy: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?
i think i moght be missing your point. could u rephrase it? -
so why are some scriptures no longer used while others were added?Originally posted by ben1xy:ermm heng ah .. i'm catholic leh ... the catholic church didnt take away stuff (can we discuss this at EH??) -
benefit of the doubt that homosexuality is down to nature and not nutureOriginally posted by ben1xy:heng ah ... i have no problem with this
innocent till proven guilty is my stand. and i will give them the benefit of the doubt
-
i went looking. and most people won't chance on this book because it is meant for the psychological field, the psychologists, psychatrists, psychology students. And I went looking, and asking. As of last count, I know 11 people doing psychology. I just had to ask. Before that, I didn't know. Now I do. So a change in knowledge to you means a contradiction to you?Originally posted by PRP:At first u said u don't whether there are medical book which say homo is born,then u say there is a medical which says .... Are u contradict yourself or do u really found such a medical book?
If there are such medical books,intelligent ppl like u all should have found them and show them to us. -
as far as US xtian community is concerned, big wide split down the middle.Originally posted by ben1xy:are Americans pro or anti-homosexual? didn't the gay movement thing start from the states? any idea on that?
open dialogues are quite comical at times ... sometimes though, it gets ugly... and then the name calling starts .. oh well -
Oh gosh, the kind of twisted logic that only Goebbels & co. are capable of.Originally posted by iveco:And if I were anti-Semitic, I'd hate the Arabs too. But they are also the sons of Abraham, so it is impossible not to put them together in the same league as Jews. Mahmoud Abbas could well have a Samaritan forefather, and these folks trace their ancestry to Joshua, son of Jacob. -
Is there any pro- gay or gay MP or minister in parliment? Any one know of?
-
i dunno about singapore, but we have a lot of 'em in UK. pro gay MPs and gay MPs. even a transsexual MPOriginally posted by ahtansh:Is there any pro- gay or gay MP or minister in parliment? Any one know of? -
Gobbels?Originally posted by Profounder:Oh gosh, the kind of twisted logic that only Goebbels & co. are capable of. If that is the case, Dr M is also one of his disciples. It was he who said it was impossible to be anti-semitic without hating Arabs during the 2003 OIC summit in KL. It is also a fact that Hebrew and Arabic come from the same linguistic family.
I think GCT once said gay people are welcome to share their ideas regarding good governance or something to that effect.Originally posted by ahtansh:Is there any pro- gay or gay MP or minister in parliment? Any one know of? -
from what is going on at EH..it seems they're situation does not differ much from yours.Originally posted by ben1xy:not exactly... it was only in the 1500s i think that Judaism removed the detreonomicals from their book and the the protestants follwed suit. got to check with the folks at eternal hope for the details... aint too good at theology go check..nobody took away anything..the catholics just added some stuff on like all that "the life of jesus" stuff into the already existing works and of course..with an organised heirachy comes politics and with politics people are bound to add in stuff to manipulate things in their favour. oh btw that has nothing to do with theology, that's under history. -
the government also encouraged free speech but arrested and sued the living daylights out of anyone who made bolder statements.Originally posted by iveco:I think GCT once said gay people are welcome to share their ideas regarding good governance or something to that effect. -
erm... i dun think the catholic church added any books into the bible after consolidating the current bible that we have now around 390AD i think.Originally posted by vito_corleone:from what is going on at EH..it seems they're situation does not differ much from yours. go check..nobody took away anything..the catholics just added some stuff on like all that "the life of jesus" stuff into the already existing works and of course..with an organised heirachy comes politics and with politics people are bound to add in stuff to manipulate things in their favour. oh btw that has nothing to do with theology, that's under history.
if u r talking abt the CCC dats a seperate item from the bible if thats wad u meant -
First of all, I beg all forumers to use EH for theology and religious discussion (Icemoon will welcome you there with open arms). Whenever there's a discussion in theology or religion, there will inevitably be flame baits and subsequently flames all over the place, which detract us from the topic of discussion here. =p Thank you for your co-operation whether which side of the fence you are sitting on.
To address Ben, I dont think anyone would support nature or nurture 100%. Most of the time, it depends on what traits/behaviours you r talking about.
For some traits/behaviours, like drug dependence, worldviews, etc. Nurture should have a higher influence.
For other traits/behaviours, like handedness or sexual orientation, etc. Nature should play a bigger part.
But then. We do not understand human psyche enough to make this a clear cut distinction yet. -
so u reckon its more towards the nature side for sexual orientation?Originally posted by earthlings73:For other traits/behaviours, like handedness or sexual orientation, etc. Nature should play a bigger part. -
for sure i think so. the DSMV is a very convincing evidence for me.Originally posted by ben1xy:so u reckon its more towards the nature side for sexual orientation? -
From the evidences I've read so far, yes...Originally posted by ben1xy:so u reckon its more towards the nature side for sexual orientation?
Especially since we do not have any concrete evidences from the "environmental" side of the argument yet. Most proponents of environmental influence on homosexuality seems to be debunking the studies from the nature side of the equation. However, we all know that all studies, no matter how well constructed, can be debunked.
This is especially true when homosexuality appears regardless of religion, race, etc. I just see it as a human facet that's poorly understood, and hence, the discrimination. -
Ah Heng... The removal of homosexuality from DSM does not address the "Nature vs Nurture" issue lah.. =pOriginally posted by HENG@:for sure i think so. the DSMV is a very convincing evidence for me.
There are tonnes of other disorders inside DSM which has shown to be significantly contributed by genetic influences. e.g., Schizophrenia is most likely found in male with biological onset (dormant trait until being triggered at certain timing) around 20 years old. Depression is most likely associated with female. There are tonnes of studies demonstrating that all these disorders have a large "biological" influence. Yet, they are still in DSM.
DSM is just a manual for Psychologists/Psychiatrists to diagnose disorders. Removing homosexuality as an entry is a step towards recognising that homosexuality is not a disorder. It's not an abnormality. And hence, it should be seen as "natural" (the natural here means normal, but it does not suggest it's biological ) as heterosexual.l -
earthling, its not about removing it from DSMV, but the RATIONALE behind its removal!Originally posted by earthlings73:Ah Heng... The removal of homosexuality from DSM does not address the "Nature vs Nurture" issue lah.. =p
There are tonnes of other disorders inside DSM which has shown to be significantly contributed by genetic influences. e.g., Schizophrenia is most likely found in male with biological onset (dormant trait until being triggered at certain timing) around 20 years old. Depression is most likely associated with female. There are tonnes of studies demonstrating that all these disorders have a large "biological" influence. Yet, they are still in DSM.
DSM is just a manual for Psychologists/Psychiatrists to diagnose disorders. Removing homosexuality as an entry is a step towards recognising that homosexuality is not a disorder. It's not an abnormality. And hence, it should be seen as "natural" (the natural here means normal, but it does not suggest it's biological ) as heterosexual.l -
heng .. with all due respect hor... u r missing his pointOriginally posted by HENG@:earthling, its not about removing it from DSMV, but the RATIONALE behind its removal! -
hmm... i can see where u're coming from .... maybe being S'porean it sorts of enculturates me to have a pre-conceived notion that its a lifetyle thing.Originally posted by earthlings73:From the evidences I've read so far, yes...
Especially since we do not have any concrete evidences from the "environmental" side of the argument yet. Most proponents of environmental influence on homosexuality seems to be debunking the studies from the nature side of the equation. However, we all know that all studies, no matter how well constructed, can be debunked.
This is especially true when homosexuality appears regardless of religion, race, etc. I just see it as a human facet that's poorly understood, and hence, the discrimination.
again... discrimination is something that's awful. be it against race, gender, sexual orientation, etc ...
i guess it's just human nature to ostracise things that r different