Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders
-
Haiz .. that's why i said invoking the 'natural' argument is dangerous because people are approaching it from two different directions.
We r talking about your approach isn't it ? U say homosexual is not natural. Then wat is your view on celibracy and contraceptives ? Comment on them. R they different from homosexual from a "darwanian" perspective ?
The same people who quote the natural law (religious people from the website you quoted) WILL NOT agree with gay supporters who cite homosexuality as natural because it is rampant in the wild. I myself pointed out this apparent irony.
But people like SIS like to conflate them and thus muddle the issue.
And your medicine is not truly darwanina as well because it does not control population and making weaker people reproduce while removing fitter people. Comment on tat too. Aren't these from your perspective ? If medicine is natural, then cloning is natural too. Comment on tis as well. -
I can agree with you that religious people do not wish to see 377A being phased out.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I make it simple to understand otherwise u r denying it
1) 377A is gonna be phased out with 377
2) religious people set a motion preventing 377A from being phased out
And for your point 1 & 2, they say minority r gays, not minority r pro gays
However the official stand of our pragmatic government (the same one who ignores the religious stand AGAINST casinos) is that the majority of singaporeans still cannot accept it.
Yup, the minority are gays, but pro-gays belong to the minority too!Prove it la ! Why u talk about incest law when u don't know where to find it. I want to read the actual wording of it before commenting. If u say it exist then quote it la !
There is no need to prove it. We know it exists. And it is just in the section before or after 377.
Basically it says it is criminal to have sex with your close relations. And penetration is enough to consitute as sex. -
I can agree with you that religious people do not wish to see 377A being phased out.
Then u agree tat it is the religious people who push for the law to exists isn't it ?
However the official stand of our pragmatic government (the same one who ignores the religious stand AGAINST casinos) is that the majority of singaporeans still cannot accept it.
Yup, the minority are gays, but pro-gays belong to the minority too!There is no need to prove it. We know it exists. And it is just in the section before or after 377.
Prove it la ! Lets just say I don't think it exists and it is phased out as 377. Prove it out to me it exist la.
Basically it says it is criminal to have sex with your close relations. And penetration is enough to consitute as sex. -
I refrain from commenting 'cos you are muddling up the issue. heck, the issue is already confusing to begin with.Originally posted by stupidissmart:We r talking about your approach isn't it ? U say homosexual is not natural. Then wat is your view on celibracy and contraceptives ? Comment on them. R they different from homosexual from a "darwanian" perspective ?
And your medicine is not truly darwanina as well because it does not control population and making weaker people reproduce while removing fitter people. Comment on tat too. Aren't these from your perspective ? If medicine is natural, then cloning is natural too. Comment on tis as well.
I have no wish to go into celibacy and contraceptives. -
The law has already existed .. is there a need to push?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then u agree tat it is the religious people who push for the law to exists isn't it ?
And don't use religious people as your punching bag. According to the govt, we are still basically a society with confucian values.
As a society, we are still not ready to accept it. -
don't be an idiot.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Prove it la ! Lets just say I don't think it exists and it is phased out as 377. Prove it out to me it exist la.
you dunno where to find the penal code? -
SIS, in case you don't get it .. haiz ..
The 'natural' cited by religious people, especially Christians, have religious overtones. Because you are anti-religion, there is no point discussing their 'natural' with you .. because all along you are thinking of darwinian!!
You know in chinese the term .. liang3 tou2 bu4 zao2 an4 .. like you are in the middle of the lake and the shores are far away from you. We are neither here nor there.
Wah leow. -
I refrain from commenting 'cos you are muddling up the issue. heck, the issue is already confusing to begin with.
I think u r confused yourself ba. U stated tat homosexual is against "darwanian natural" and when it comes to contraceptives and celibracy which is equally against "darwanian natural" , u refused to comment on it. To be frank your natural argument is just a slippery slope
I have no wish to go into celibacy and contraceptives.The law has already existed .. is there a need to push?
U don't confuse the people. The law is going to be phased out and now it is retained because the religious people r pushing for it to be retainedAnd don't use religious people as your punching bag. According to the govt, we are still basically a society with confucian values.
People who have confucian value don't feel as strongly on the homosexual issue. And whether the majority of the people r against gays r unknown as the gov stand is simply
"The decision on whether or not to decriminalise gay sex is a very divisive one and until there is a broader consensus on the matter, Singapore will stick to the status quo"The 'natural' cited by religious people, especially Christians, have religious overtones. Because you are anti-religion, there is no point discussing their 'natural' with you .. because all along you are thinking of darwinian!!
The darwanian argument is started by u isn't it
-
You are deliberately putting my statements out of context.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u r confused yourself ba. U stated tat homosexual is against "darwanian natural" and when it comes to contraceptives and celibracy which is equally against "darwanian natural" , u refused to comment on it. To be frank your natural argument is just a slippery slope
My context is, while homosexuality is rampant in the wild, the act itself is not very darwinian if the role of copulation is to pass down your genes. So I wonder if a living thing is gay, does that make it a basket case?
Pls .. I've said we should refrain from using the natural argument in human. Only gay supporters, by citing the rampant cases of gay animals, use the natural argument.U don't confuse the people. The law is going to be phased out and now it is retained because the religious people r pushing for it to be retained
Huh .. when the religious people were pushing for the IRs NOT to start, why didn't the government stop?
You make it seem like the religious people have such big influence on the government. My foot.People who have confucian value don't feel as strongly on the homosexual issue. And whether the majority of the people r against gays r unknown as the gov stand is simply
If they don't feel strongly, it doesn't mean they accept either. But in decriminalising gay sex, the govt is taking a stand. The govt has to take a stand 'cos it is either retain or repeal in this case. The govt cannot sit on the fence like the, according to you, majority of the citizens.
"The decision on whether or not to decriminalise gay sex is a very divisive one and until there is a broader consensus on the matter, Singapore will stick to the status quo
I dunno why you still cannot understand. We are talking about the status quo. A broader consensus is needed. So what you can do, and what gay supporters can do, is to achieve this broader consensus. And not rant in SGF that just 'cos the majority of people are undecided (according to you), we should repeal the law.The darwanian argument is started by u isn't it
Nope. I have all along being using the pragmatic argument. The darwinian was a comment, not an argument. But you dragged me into the argument, with your contraception, medicine and what have you.
Since you like to debate so much, then I feng4 pei2 lor. But you chose to define darwinian rather narrowly, how it applies to nature only, while I chose to define darwinian as survival of the fittest. That is why niu tou bu dui ma zui. -
My context is, while homosexuality is rampant in the wild, the act itself is not very darwinian if the role of copulation is to pass down your genes. So I wonder if a living thing is gay, does that make it a basket case?
And my case is, celibracy is not darwanian itself and it is equally in the same basket condition. If tat is a reason to condemn homosexual, then catholic fathers r in the same situationPls .. I've said we should refrain from using the natural argument in human. Only gay supporters, by citing the rampant cases of gay animals, use the natural argument.
The whole starting of natural is made by PRP and others. And he, like many anti gay people, say tat heterosexual is natural while homosexual is not natural and the nature role of a male sexual organ is to be used on a female sexual organ. R u trying to just bullsh !t through and insist tat only gay talk about natural as an argument and I never read any replies from them on "natural". Did u even read the earlier pages of replies ?Huh .. when the religious people were pushing for the IRs NOT to start, why didn't the government stop?
They r different cases with vastly different outcome isn't it ? Just because the gov build IR doesn't mean the gov heck care religious people. The gov also insist GST to be raised as well. So the gov heck care its people and want them to die ?
You make it seem like the religious people have such big influence on the government. My foot.If they don't feel strongly, it doesn't mean they accept either. But in decriminalising gay sex, the govt is taking a stand. The govt has to take a stand 'cos it is either retain or repeal in this case. The govt cannot sit on the fence like the, according to you, majority of the citizens.
trueI dunno why you still cannot understand. We are talking about the status quo. A broader consensus is needed. So what you can do, and what gay supporters can do, is to achieve this broader consensus. And not rant in SGF that just 'cos the majority of people are undecided (according to you), we should repeal the law.
U need to understand tis. It is indeed the status quo, as it followed for a few hundred years. But if things r left naturally without any group of people appealing or repealing, 377A is set to be eliminated. Meaning if everybody just be quiet and let gov do its job, 377A will not be retained. The stand of the gov is made ackward now. Oral sex between a man and woman is legal while between men is illegal. It is double standard.Nope. I have all along being using the pragmatic argument. The darwinian was a comment, not an argument. But you dragged me into the argument, with your contraception, medicine and what have you.
And I made my comment on it but u choose to talk and emphasis on medicine and all the rubbish concept from u. It is u who try to fight for a case whereby medicine is darwanian and so does the rest of civilisation except strangely homosexual which is not darwanian.Since you like to debate so much, then I feng4 pei2 lor. But you chose to define darwinian rather narrowly, how it applies to nature only, while I chose to define darwinian as survival of the fittest. That is why niu tou bu dui ma zui.
I think your definition is narrow itself ba. I can never understand why u felt homosexual become a helpless basket case while celibracy remain uncommented. U r just trying to confuse everyone isn't it ? -
That is your problem; nobody was discussing celibacy in this topic.Originally posted by stupidissmart:And my case is, celibracy is not darwanian itself and it is equally in the same basket condition. If tat is a reason to condemn homosexual, then catholic fathers r in the same situation
Anyway, celibacy is a choice and has nothing to do with darwinian.The whole starting of natural is made by PRP and others. And he, like many anti gay people, say tat heterosexual is natural while homosexual is not natural and the nature role of a male sexual organ is to be used on a female sexual organ. R u trying to just bullsh !t through and insist tat only gay talk about natural as an argument and I never read any replies from them on "natural". Did u even read the earlier pages of replies ?
Like I said, it is better you not discuss this at all, 'cos you conflate all the definitions of 'natural' together.
He is right of course. The nature role of a male sex organ is indeed to be used on a female sex organ. Are you to disagree on this?They r different cases with vastly different outcome isn't it ? Just because the gov build IR doesn't mean the gov heck care religious people. The gov also insist GST to be raised as well. So the gov heck care its people and want them to die ?
I never say govt heck care religious people. But you claim that religious people have such power on the govt, and this you have to prove.
I see the govt as being pragmatic. So to raise GST is pragmatism. To have IR is pragmatism. To have seemingly the same stand as religious people on the issue on homosexuality is also pragmatism.U need to understand tis. It is indeed the status quo, as it followed for a few hundred years. But if things r left naturally without any group of people appealing or repealing, 377A is set to be eliminated. Meaning if everybody just be quiet and let gov do its job, 377A will not be retained. The stand of the gov is made ackward now. Oral sex between a man and woman is legal while between men is illegal. It is double standard.
I disagree. The public does not view oral sex between man/woman in the same light as oral sex between man and man. To use their wording, no broader consensus yet. So how can govt eliminate everything together?And I made my comment on it but u choose to talk and emphasis on medicine and all the rubbish concept from u. It is u who try to fight for a case whereby medicine is darwanian and so does the rest of civilisation except strangely homosexual which is not darwanian.
Huh .. you were the one who came out with the medicine .. not me.
I said liao .. my definition of darwinian is rather encompassing. Nature, society etc. If you cannot agree with my definition and choose to see darwinian in its unadultered form in nature, then I think we have nothing to discuss.I think your definition is narrow itself ba. I can never understand why u felt homosexual become a helpless basket case while celibracy remain uncommented. U r just trying to confuse everyone isn't it ?
Well, homosexual is indeed a helpless basket case 'cos I wonder what is their mechanism to pass down their genes . What's wrong with that?
Celibacy is a choice. Indeed celibates recognize their ability to pass down their genes, hence they live a more prudent lifestyle, like not mixing with woman. -
CAN SOMEONE CLOSE THIS THREAD?
-
That is your problem; nobody was discussing celibacy in this topic.
Com'on, strangely a lot of people support celibracy and strangely tis same group of people view homosexual as a basket case and condemned them. Tis is not the real reason for imposing stupid rules on gays ba. Double standard isn't it ? Choice or not, it doesn't matter because the outcome is the same. It is against darwanian.
Anyway, celibacy is a choice and has nothing to do with darwinian.Like I said, it is better you not discuss this at all, 'cos you conflate all the definitions of 'natural' together.
All tis while, people r talking about the same type of natural until u come along and messed things up and blame it on people
He is right of course. The nature role of a male sex organ is indeed to be used on a female sex organ. Are you to disagree on this? Now u admit anti gay people do use the "natural" argument isn't it ?
On male sexual organ used on a female sex organ, it is indeed natural. However people r using the mouth to be used ont he spot where people urine and tat is even more unnatural. However nobody seemed to mind tis. Why mind homosexual ?I never say govt heck care religious people. But you claim that religious people have such power on the govt, and this you have to prove.
They have succeed in stoppping 377A from dissappearing isn't itI see the govt as being pragmatic. So to raise GST is pragmatism. To have IR is pragmatism. To have seemingly the same stand as religious people on the issue on homosexuality is also pragmatism.
True. The consequences of removing 377A gets the wrath of religious people and they get unpopular. It sure is pragmaticI disagree. The public does not view oral sex between man/woman in the same light as oral sex between man and man. To use their wording, no broader consensus yet. So how can govt eliminate everything together?
Same light ? Nope. Acknowledge such people exists ? Yes. U know even straight people go to changi village to find guys. The majority do not have to view them as same light, they just have to view tat such people exists and let them do watever they want in privateHuh .. you were the one who came out with the medicine .. not me.
Another double standard isn't it ? U view reproduction as unadultered form from nature while u view diesease as modified and able to follow society. Wow man, u really love to double standard and being unfair isn't it ?
I said liao .. my definition of darwinian is rather encompassing. Nature, society etc. If you cannot agree with my definition and choose to see darwinian in its unadultered form in nature, then I think we have nothing to discuss.Well, homosexual is indeed a helpless basket case 'cos I wonder what is their mechanism to pass down their genes . What's wrong with that?
If everything is perfect, then animals won't be homosexualCelibacy is a choice. Indeed celibates recognize their ability to pass down their genes, hence they live a more prudent lifestyle, like not mixing with woman.
ANd they r still basket cases and cannot reproduce like homosexual isn't it ? -
No homosexuality
The natural instinct of sex is heterosexual.When a man is attracted to another man,this is what we called as homo.But then the man is attracted to another man who looks more feminine.So it is still heterosexual.The so called homosexuality, I think, really is a male is attracted to a false male or a female is attracted to afalse female.All these talk about homosexuality and homo is born,I think, is bull.In my humble opinion,there is only heterosexuality and homosex. -
SIS must have the last say.It doesn't mean he wins the debate.
-
The natural instinct of sex is heterosexual.When a man is attracted to another man,this is what we called as homo.But then the man is attracted to another man who looks more feminine.So it is still heterosexual.The so called homosexuality, I think, really is a male is attracted to a false male or a female is attracted to afalse female.All these talk about homosexuality and homo is born,I think, is bull.In my humble opinion,there is only heterosexuality and homosex.
Frankly speaking, I don't care wat u think. Tis is because u r not qualified to tell us tat there is no such thing as homosexual when all the psychotrists, doctors, medical researchers and educated people know homosexual exists. U can even ask the pope and he know there r homosexual in the world. But u don't. And u cannot produce any evidence except telling us wat u think. Wat u think is insignificant because it may not (in tis case cannot) be the truth. -
Originally posted by PRP:
I thought you have agreed to stop this debate...
[b]No homosexuality
The natural instinct of sex is heterosexual.When a man is attracted to another man,this is what we called as homo.But then the man is attracted to another man who looks more feminine.So it is still heterosexual.The so called homosexuality, I think, really is a male is attracted to a false male or a female is attracted to afalse female.All these talk about homosexuality and homo is born,I think, is bull.In my humble opinion,there is only heterosexuality and homosex.[/b]
By looking at your statements .. you really made ppl wondering your educational level, your looks and your family background ..
upto you to say or not .. -
many days ago, we already say merry christmas liao.Originally posted by PRP:SIS must have the last say.It doesn't mean he wins the debate.
all of us agree to be friends .. why are we still bickering?
-
Oh!~, look who's talking about wanting the last say.Originally posted by PRP:SIS must have the last say.It doesn't mean he wins the debate. -
Originally posted by PRP:
Homo supporters have refuted my opinion.Now,let the readers decide whose view to believe.
[b]No homosexuality
The natural instinct of sex is heterosexual.When a man is attracted to another man,this is what we called as homo.But then the man is attracted to another man who looks more feminine.So it is still heterosexual.The so called homosexuality, I think, really is a male is attracted to a false male or a female is attracted to afalse female.All these talk about homosexuality and homo is born,I think, is bull.In my humble opinion,there is only heterosexuality and homosex.[/b] -
Even we debate,we still can be frends.Unless some ppl take it personally.Originally posted by Icemoon:many days ago, we already say merry christmas liao.
all of us agree to be friends .. why are we still bickering? -
This thread is still alive? Wow.
Anyway, if some people can't accept Gays/Lesbians, that means that they can't really accept the fact that there are others around who is different from them.
They choose to believe that things which are different/unknown to them can harm them, or is wrong, so they rejected it.
Nobody is forcing gays/lesbians down anyone throats. No one is forcing you to turn gay if the rule is successfully repeal. No man on man sex is gonna pop up all of a sudden in the streets just because the rule is repeal, if that is what homophobic fears.
All they ask is for the gov to repeal the rule, to accept them for who they are. Do not tell me you gonna hate your own child if they happens to turn out to be gay/lesbian? If you do, you are just loving your pride more than you love your child, & it's just wrong. -
I see the similarity between PRP and TED HAGGARD before the "exposure".
-
The law can't stop ppl from having sex,hetero or homo one,in their privacy.Geys need not justify their sexual behavior is right.In fact,it is not right and most ppl think so. Don't call for gey right,and nobody would bother them.
-
Sure of the last statement?Originally posted by PRP:The law can't stop ppl from having sex,hetero or homo one,in their privacy.Geys need not justify their sexual behavior is right.In fact,it is not right and most ppl think so. Don't call for gey right,and nobody would bother them.