Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders

• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:05

  Originally posted by LazerLordz:

  Secondly, what's condom usage then? Pai swee one ah?

  Yah lor .. tell that to SIS!
  
  His argument defending the incest law is pathetic.
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 10:11

  The point is, if the repurcussions are as serious as you say, then why did these two countries not make it illegal?
  
  I push my point further .. do you see legions of deformed babies from these two countries from incest birth? Why?

  I never claim tat the end result is drastic. As said, the reasoning why homosexual is allowed while incest is not is due to the fact tat incest is a choice while homosexual is inborn. So far, u have been ignoring the point and attack from an angle which I never mention I think u r the one with pathetic argument
  
  

  Exactly! So those who wanna go into incest should think twice before doing it! But then, who is to STOP THEM from doing it? The law?

  And why has tat got to do with homosexual Incest can form deformed babies while AIDS patient can give babies with AIDs. And wat child canhomosexual produced ? U have been lumping homosexual and incest together but they have little in common. Why don't u prove to me tat homosexual is the same as incest first ?
  
  

  His argument defending the incest law is pathetic

  Your argument on putting incest is pathetic ba. U never seek to clarify why u put incest as the same as homosexual.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:21

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  If u have read my pevious reply to icemoon, then u will read the following point. Firstly, homosexual do not do harm to others. In tis sense, it is the same as suicide or drugs or incest. However, secondly homosexual is inborn. Tat means they r borned to be gay. It is different from drugs or incest or suicide. It is not a choice but nature will

  I agree that consenting sodomy acts should not be criminal if it is nature instead of nurture.
  
  PRP .. what do you have to say to this?
  
  

  The large majority of gays r not promisuous. If u want to prevent spreading of AIDs, u should target the people who have AIDs, not gays who r faithful to their partner. If u wanna enact a law, then u should banned all AIDs people not to have sex, not ban homosexual.

  Actually .. we are all guys here right? LOL .. it is the ladies who should be worried instead, if some of these gays turn out to be bisexuals.
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 10:27

  Actually .. we are all guys here right? LOL .. it is the ladies who should be worried instead, if some of these gays turn out to be bisexuals.

  Straight guys can have AIDs and being bisexual doesn't mean they have AIDs. They should be worried about their guys having AIDs instead ba
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 10:27

  Lets summarise our incest arguments and see who is more pathetic
  
  U pull in incest as an argument for why homosexual should be banned. The only similarity between the 2 is rights behind closed doors.
  
  I answered tat incest is different because it can create deformed babies as well as it being a choice and not inborn. Homosexual is inborn unless proven otherwise
  
  then u pull in AIDs and say why don't we ban AIDs from reproducing
  
  I say we should make a law forcing AIDs patient to tell their sexual partner of their sickness, which is definitely more meaningful than 377A. And if they choose to still reproduce and have babies, at least the mortality rate is 20 years old which is better than incest.
  
  Then u say france and japan allow incest
  
  I say so wat ?
  
  Then u say my arguments r pathetic. I felt u r the one tat does not understand the argument
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:29

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  Your argument on putting incest is pathetic ba. U never seek to clarify why u put incest as the same as homosexual.

  Actually you TOTALLY miss my point.
  
  I put incest as the same as homosexual because the same noble reasons repealing 377A can be used to support the repeal of the incest law!
  
  I am not using the incest law to pull homosexual down, but to use the now liberated homosexual to liberate incestous couples also.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:31

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  Straight guys can have AIDs and being bisexual doesn't mean they have AIDs. They should be worried about their guys having AIDs instead ba

  I mean you should be more worried about women getting AIDS instead of men.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:33

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  Then u say france and japan allow incest
  
  I say so wat ?

  They recognize the right of a loving [incestuous] couple to have carnal intercourse behind closed doors .. do you?
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 10:38

  I put incest as the same as homosexual because the same noble reasons repealing 377A can be used to support the repeal of the incest law!

  The key point is homosexual have no choice while incest is a choice. Tat makes a whole lot of differences. The noble reasons used for homosexual cannot be used on incest
  
  

  They recognize the right of a loving [incestuous] couple to have carnal intercourse behind closed doors .. do you?

  To be frank, if they wanna liberate a law allowing incest, I am not gonna be supportive of them nor outlawing them. Wat about u ? Burn them on a stake ?
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:41

  What a joke siah.
  
  People here act noble to fight for the repeal of 377A, citing thousand and one reasons. Say what we shouldn't discriminate minorities, what govt should not impose religious views on minorities.
  
  Then when it comes to repeal incest law, they tell me to, in the words of one forummer, fight my own battle?
  
  And none of them dare to admit the noble reasons for repealing 377A are also valid for repealing incest law.
  
  By the way, incest law already repealed in France and Japan liao.
  
  
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 10:44

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  The key point is homosexual have no choice while incest is a choice. Tat makes a whole lot of differences. The noble reasons used for homosexual cannot be used on incest

  Actually you are the real monster among all of us.
  
  I ask you again, assume the scenario that homosexuals have a choice, does it mean 377A should NOT be repealed?
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 10:57

  People here act noble to fight for the repeal of 377A, citing thousand and one reasons. Say what we shouldn't discriminate minorities, what govt should not impose religious views on minorities.

  U fail to read properly or wat I have already said tat homosexual is inborn and not a choice. It is different from incest and incest can give defective children tat can kill them. And u fail to answer these points or acknowledge them. The only similarity is they act behind closed doors, much like drugs or suicide but it is nto good for the overall progression of the society
  
  

  I ask you again, assume the scenario that homosexuals have a choice, does it mean 377A should NOT be repealed?

  I have already answer u, even if they have a choice, they r still better than incest which can give defective children.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 11:00

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  I have already answer u, even if they have a choice, they r still better than incest which can give defective children.

  You never answer the question. I ask you again.
  
  If they have a choice, then it follows that 377A should NOT be repealed?
  
  YES OR NO?
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 11:06

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  U fail to read properly or wat I have already said tat homosexual is inborn and not a choice. It is different from incest and incest can give defective children tat can kill them. And u fail to answer these points or acknowledge them. The only similarity is they act behind closed doors, much like drugs or suicide but it is nto good for the overall progression of the society

  I have acknowledged these points as pathetic .. didn't I?
  
  It is pathetic because it is not a reason at all if we consider AIDS will also give birth to problematic children. And your ONLY rebutt is that AIDS children can live for 20 years while these defective children die instantly. Is this even a reason? Moreover, you did not even cite any evidence to booster your claim.
  
  Your rebutt is laughable. You are implying children with AIDS are ok because they can live longer than children from incestuous parents.
  
  Ultimately, you still fail to see the point that it is all about CHOICE. The choice of two consenting adults to have carnal intercourse behind closed door!
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 11:09

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  The only similarity is they act behind closed doors, much like drugs or suicide but it is nto good for the overall progression of the society

  Dont talk about overall progression of the society.
  
  Becoming a monk or priest or nun also not good for progression of society. Why don't we criminalise them?
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 11:12

  The ultimate joke is that SIS forgets this thing called condom. This and other contraceptive methods should ally his fear that an incestuous act will lead to defective children.
  
  The rubber pai swee one issit?
  
  
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 11:30

  You never answer the question. I ask you again.
  
  If they have a choice, then it follows that 377A should NOT be repealed?
  
  YES OR NO?

  I thought I have already answered tat.
  
  NO. Because Homosexual is still better than incest. Furthermore, homosexual is inborn. And lastly, u r just talking about a completely hypothetical case whereby homosexual is a choice. I list down why incest is worse than homosexual
  
  1. Incest is definitely a choice
  2. incest give defective children
  3. Incest give problem to society since the parents of the children can teach his children to have sex with them making them willing sexual partners. They have a direct relationship
  
  Now why don't u list why homosexual should be banned ? I don't see u giving any reasons why homosexual should be banned.
  
  

  It is pathetic because it is not a reason at all if we consider AIDS will also give birth to problematic children. And your ONLY rebutt is that AIDS children can live for 20 years while these defective children die instantly. Is this even a reason? Moreover, you did not even cite any evidence to booster your claim

  Com'on. DO u accept incest give an additional problem of defective children ? Why don't u answer tis question first ? And if u look at homosexual, than incest give an additional problem to homosexual and tat makes homosexual to be better than incest. Since homosexual is better than incest, than why compare the 2 together ?
  
  

  Becoming a monk or priest or nun also not good for progression of society. Why don't we criminalise them?

  Tat is right. Why not Then wat is your rationale for criminalising homosexual ? I want to hear your reasons
  
  

  The ultimate joke is that SIS forgets this thing called condom. This and other contraceptive methods should ally his fear that an incestuous act will lead to defective children.

  True. But I have stated my stand isn't it. Incest is a choice, homosexual is inborn. Even if u can use contraceptives to prevent children, it is not fool proof.
• chinese helicopter

  12 Jan 08, 12:25

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Moral standards have their origins in religious movements, for example the 10 commandments and feminine rights in Islam.
  
  Indeed the govt treats homosexual equal. How are they not treated equal in any practical sense?
  
  I am a practical person and when I mean equal, I mean equal. Not like some fuzzy rights like citizens have freedom of speech and there is this place called Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim which you can use.

  How about Confucianism ? It is not a religion, does that mean ancient chinese do not have any moral standard before they were influenced by foreign religion? Yes, they had, the ancient chinese women were suppose to be confined in the house before they are married,that was their moral standard then.
  
  So my question here , what type of moral standard should we follow now in the modern world- I think we should follow the norm of majority countries in the world based on fairness and equality- interesting to know, is there a law such as 377A in other first world countries ?
• stupidissmart

  12 Jan 08, 12:32

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
  
  If u look at the map above, u will realise most countries legalised homosexual. Even china, indonesia, phillipines and vatican city(italy) have legalised homosexual. Generally, only religious countries or africa r banning homosexual.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 12:47

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
  
  If u look at the map above, u will realise most countries legalised homosexual. Even china, indonesia, phillipines and vatican city(italy) have legalised homosexual. Generally, only religious countries or africa r banning homosexual.

  What? Even Vatican City has legalised it?
  
  What is the Pope doing man.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 12:56

  Originally posted by chinese helicopter:

  How about Confucianism ? It is not a religion, does that mean ancient chinese do not have any moral standard before they were influenced by foreign religion? Yes, they had, the ancient chinese women were suppose to be confined in the house before they are married,that was their moral standard then.

  Confucianism is not a religion but does that mean the ancient chinese did not have any religion?
  
  The Emperor as the Son of God, ancestor worship, these are surely not denied in a Confucian state of ancient China. In fact, religion is probably as old as civilization itself.
  
  

  So my question here , what type of moral standard should we follow now in the modern world- I think we should follow the norm of majority countries in the world based on fairness and equality- interesting to know, is there a law such as 377A in other first world countries ?

  Is following the majority always correct? Should we, as a sovereign nation, not have a say in the running of our country?
  
  As a pragmatic nation, we should know better. If there is no fairness and equality, the govt should know better than pandering to the likes and dislikes of the religious extremists who are in the minority anway.
• Icemoon

  12 Jan 08, 13:05

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  NO. Because Homosexual is still better than incest. Furthermore, homosexual is inborn. And lastly, u r just talking about a completely hypothetical case whereby homosexual is a choice. I list down why incest is worse than homosexual

  Why can't you answer my question decisively? Why do you make unnecessary elaboration that doesn't answer my question?
  
  My question is, if homosexuality is a choice, does it mean that we should NOT do away with 377A, i.e. the current law should stay? Is this question too hard for you?
  
  

  Com'on. DO u accept incest give an additional problem of defective children ? Why don't u answer tis question first ? And if u look at homosexual, than incest give an additional problem to homosexual and tat makes homosexual to be better than incest. Since homosexual is better than incest, than why compare the 2 together ?

  You are really making my day.
  
  Now you are comparing them on the basis of which is better. So the better one you support, the worse one you boo boo.
  
  Similary you have argued that sex with AIDS people per se should NOT be criminalised but sex with your close relations should be. On the basis of your unfounded assumption that babies with AIDS are not as damaging as children from incestuous birth.
  
  

  Tat is right. Why not

  So you are saying we should criminalise people who become monks, priests or nuns?
  
  

  True. But I have stated my stand isn't it. Incest is a choice, homosexual is inborn. Even if u can use contraceptives to prevent children, it is not fool proof.

  If it is not fool proof, rightly so, then shouldn't sex with AIDS people be criminal as well? After all, you have a choice whether to have sex with a clean woman or a dirty woman.
• happieman

  12 Jan 08, 13:46

  [quote]Originally posted by PRP:
  
  
  I'm not a gey,so i am not qualified to talk about this tiopic.Are u a born gey?[/quote
  
  sorry i have to ask again .. what is your educational level ?
  
  you just can't answer the question correctly .. are you born dumb ?
• happieman

  12 Jan 08, 13:48

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Actually you TOTALLY miss my point.
  
  I put incest as the same as homosexual because the same noble reasons repealing 377A can be used to support the repeal of the incest law!
  
  I am not using the incest law to pull homosexual down, but to use the now liberated homosexual to liberate incestous couples also.

  actually u don have a point .. u keep running round and round ...
  
  i suggest u take a break and relax ... keep away from PRP .. do u more harm than good ..
• happieman

  12 Jan 08, 13:53

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Why can't you answer my question decisively? Why do you make unnecessary elaboration that doesn't answer my question?
  
  My question is, if homosexuality is a choice, does it mean that we should NOT do away with 377A, i.e. the current law should stay? Is this question too hard for you?
  
  .

  let me answer ur this question ...
  
  even PM Lee said ..."you like it or not, ......it has been proven that ..."
  
  homosexuality is not a choice .. it is inborn, like u may have some gayness within u subconsciuosly.. just that u not aware of it ..
  
  SO THE QUESTION IS NOT VALID !