Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders
-
It should not be banned and neither should incest. Happy?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I am asking u based on wat grounds should homosexual be banned. Why r u refusing to answer tis question ? I have asked u more than 3 times liao yet u still refuse to answer it ?
The law have already stated tat for hurting, the magnitude is different with different punishment. I have prove to u tat there is a section tat make minor hurting offences as crimeless. In fact throughout the world they have tis same law and it is totally reasonable. U wanna challenge the law ?
I never said the law is not reasonable with respect to what you said above. I pointed out that if incest is to be criminal *because* it leads to defective babies, then sex with HIV patient should be criminal as well. The punishments can be different, this we leave to the judge to decide.George bush and osama have 2 eyes and 1 nose. R they the same ?
They are the same as far as human beings are concerned.
I have already stated, tat is the only similarity between them. They r totally different. Just because they have one similarity doesn't make them the same.
I never said incest and homosexual are the same thing. I pointed out that if we are to liberate homosexuals on the basis that what they do is a harmless private act, then the same should be done for the incestuous couple.And why r they guilty ? State me the reasons why a woman having anal sex is different from a guy taking the anal sex.
They are not guilty.
Of course they are different! If you intend that George Bush and Osama are different even though both have 2 eyes and 1 nose, then I also have the right to claim homo and hetero sex are different. Right?It is true it is not criminal, but my stand is they should have a law asking them to inform the other party their conditions. I feel tat preventing defective children or spreading diesease is good for everybody. In tis sense incest is worse than homosexual
You can have your law, no problem. But if the couple decides to take the risk, then do you agree that they should not be penalized for the consensual act? Likewise for incest.
Sex with HIV person or close relative not lead to pregnancy ? U know wat is sex or not ? U know how babies come about ?
Sex does not lead to pregnancy. What stupid logic you have here! If sex leads to pregnancy, you know how many babies Latinos will have in their lifetime? Imagine .. they have sex at least twice a week right? -
I believe I have answered your question in my typical one-liner way.
Now can you answer my question?
Let's assume homo is a choice, like if APA makes a statement saying it is. Then do you think homo should be criminalised? -
This SIS very funny. He's still thinking I am against homo.
-
nothing u can do if they want to be homo..
-
It should not be banned and neither should incest. Happy?
I already told u why incest is different from homosexual
If u think i am wrong, rebut me. If u refuse or cannot, then u have to show me why homosexual should be banned. I ask u for 4 times. Why banned homosexual ?I never said the law is not reasonable with respect to what you said above. I pointed out that if incest is to be criminal *because* it leads to defective babies, then sex with HIV patient should be criminal as well. The punishments can be different, this we leave to the judge to decide.
If u want, go and ask the governent to form tis law la ! I support the law seeking people with HIV to inform their partner of their condition. If u wanna me to sign a petition, I will do it. However tis is far far far far off from homosexual and tis threadThey are the same as far as human beings are concerned
Give me a definitive answer, a yes or not answer. Is george bush = osama ? True they r both human. But r they the same ? Why does george bush go around as president of USA while osama have to hide from people ?
I never said incest and homosexual are the same thing. I pointed out that if we are to liberate homosexuals on the basis that what they do is a harmless private act, then the same should be done for the incestuous couple.
There r many arguments why homosexual shouldn't be banned, not only because it is a private act. It is a private act tat does not harm other people of the society AT ALL. If u disagree, then u have to state why. Why have u refuse to state why homosexual should be banned ? State to me ! I already challenged u so many times. And why have u refuse to comment on the fact tat incest is different from homosexual ? Why have u refuse to comment tat incest is worse than homosexual ? Let me hear wat u want to say. Tell it to me !Of course they are different! If you intend that George Bush and Osama are different even though both have 2 eyes and 1 nose, then I also have the right to claim homo and hetero sex are different. Right?
Wat is the difference ? My question is on wat ground r man having anal sex worse than woman. I told u the difference between incest and homosexual. U list down the reasons why woman having anal sex is different from man.You can have your law, no problem. But if the couple decides to take the risk, then do you agree that they should not be penalized for the consensual act? Likewise for incest.
Com'on... the law see things from a negative angle to protect the general people. If there is a high risk tat it can happen, then they will have to act in a general manner to safeguard society. Why is people under 16 considered as minor when it is likely they knew about the world ? Because law have to generalise and set the right coundary. Regular sex can have a high chance of having babies right ? Why shouldn't the risk be considered in itSex does not lead to pregnancy. What stupid logic you have here! If sex leads to pregnancy, you know how many babies Latinos will have in their lifetime? Imagine .. they have sex at least twice a week right?
In tat case, then there is no such things as children being "accidents" I heard people who admitted they have children not because they want to but because they r careless. U wanna claim tat everyone can control the exact amount of children they want and not more ? -
I accept challenges and answer all questions my opponent want. Lets see about u
Let's assume homo is a choice, like if APA makes a statement saying it is. Then do you think homo should be criminalised?
NO.
Then should incest be legalised ?
NO.
Why ?
Because incest is worse than homosexual. I have stated many reasons for many times.
Now let me challenge u for the 5th time.
Explicitly tell me why should homosexual be banned ? I don't want cheeky answer tat did not tell anything. I want u to list down the wrongs homosexual did to society and the exploit they can make use of by prohibiting them from private sex. -
You asked 4 times, but I think I have answered this 40 times.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u think i am wrong, rebut me. If u refuse or cannot, then u have to show me why homosexual should be banned. I ask u for 4 times. Why banned homosexual ?
Homosexual should not be banned, neither should incest.If u want, go and ask the governent to form tis law la ! I support the law seeking people with HIV to inform their partner of their condition. If u wanna me to sign a petition, I will do it. However tis is far far far far off from homosexual and tis thread
It is not a far * 4 off from this thread. It concerns fairness and equality. Isn't this the gist of this thread? That there should be fairness and equality for homosexuals.Give me a definitive answer, a yes or not answer. Is george bush = osama ? True they r both human. But r they the same ? Why does george bush go around as president of USA while osama have to hide from people ?
Hmm, what a stupid question. If you want to be kei4 gao3, no two objects are the same in this world. So what's your point?Wat is the difference ? My question is on wat ground r man having anal sex worse than woman. I told u the difference between incest and homosexual. U list down the reasons why woman having anal sex is different from man.
Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, here I go:
Is woman anal sex = man anal sex?If there is a high risk tat it can happen, then they will have to act in a general manner to safeguard society. Why is people under 16 considered as minor when it is likely they knew about the world ? Because law have to generalise and set the right coundary. Regular sex can have a high chance of having babies right ? Why shouldn't the risk be considered in it
Your reasoning is kinda silly.
I quoted HIV 'cos it has been known since 1981 and since then, it is known as the incurable disease. And in places like Africa, AIDs is spreading like wildfire and in every society, it is seen as a threat.
If you are right, that incest law is there to safeguard society, we wonder why sex with HIV patients has not been criminalised yet? Come on, the threat from which is bigger, HIV or incest?
Furthermore, incest law has been lifted in Japan and France. There is no such safeguard in their country. Can you find evidence that this lack of safeguard is wreaking havoc on their society?In tat case, then there is no such things as children being "accidents" I heard people who admitted they have children not because they want to but because they r careless. U wanna claim tat everyone can control the exact amount of children they want and not more ?
Again another silly reasoning. To take an analogy, driving a motorbike which has higher chance of kenna accident and the higher chance of dying from the accident, is surely no reason to ban motorbikes from the road. -
Homosexual should not be banned, neither should incest
Com'on, anybody can tell tat u r not speaking from your heart. U r trying to use incest as a means to say why homosexual should be banned. U don't care about incest at all. When it comes to listing the problems of homosexual, u r speechless.
Then lets make an agreement. If u really think homosexual should not be banned, then we agree with each other and leave things as it is.
If u think incest should not be banned, then u have to treat it as a totally different thing and leave homosexual out of it. I have listed why incest is different from homosexual and tat is why incest should be criminised but not homosexual. Otherwise u have to convince why these 2 completely different things r the sameIt is not a far * 4 off from this thread. It concerns fairness and equality. Isn't this the gist of this thread? That there should be fairness and equality for homosexuals.
Yup, there should be fairness and equality. But u r bringing completely different issues in altogether. I don't understand why u r trying to muddle the issues like bringing in AIDS and incest and failed to prove they r the same thing. I have proven tat the magnitude is moe serious for incest isn't it ?Hmm, what a stupid question. If you want to be kei4 gao3, no two objects are the same in this world. So what's your point?
If u want to say they r the same, then u have to rebut my points on why I think they r different. U did not do it yet claim they r the same. Wat is your point ?Is woman anal sex = man anal sex?
Oh com'on... I have stated my reasons why incest is different from homosexual. If u wanna imitate, then u have to imitate fully
I told u liao... I support to criminised AIDs people to force them to inform their sexual partners. I support u in here, no conflicts. Why u keep asking me a question which I repeatedly told u I support legislative against AIDs ?
If you are right, that incest law is there to safeguard society, we wonder why sex with HIV patients has not been criminalised yet? Come on, the threat from which is bigger, HIV or incest?Furthermore, incest law has been lifted in Japan and France. There is no such safeguard in their country. Can you find evidence that this lack of safeguard is wreaking havoc on their society?
Japan and France have lifted incest laws. So wat has tat got to do with anything ? I told u why incest laws r more harmful than homosexual, and tat is my rationale for prohibiting incest while supporting homosexual. Till now u fail to tell me why homosexual should be bannedAgain another silly reasoning. To take an analogy, driving a motorbike which has higher chance of kenna accident and the higher chance of dying from the accident, is surely no reason to ban motorbikes from the road.
Com'on la... u r talking about a completely different thing altogether. Having sex give babies right ? Incest sex can give deform babies right ? When u debate an incest law, u have to consider tis into the equation. U r suggesting we ignore the chances of having defect children when deciding incest legality. Is tat a fair consideration ?
For motorcycles, they have consider the fact tat motorcycles can caused accidents and still decide to still legalised motorcycles. DO u agree lawmakers should consider defect children when considering incest laws ? -
Allow me to summarise the whole argument of incest so far. If anyone think I am wrong, they r free to correct me
People tat support 377A to be around used incest as a ground to attack people who r against the existence of 377A. There r some similarities between the 2. Incest also deal with an act in private, much like homosexual. Both appears to harm no other party of society except the issue or reproduction. If incest is prohibited, while not prohibit homosexual ?
My arguments r incest is much worse than homosexual. First thing is, homosexual r inborn while incest is not inborn. Incest is a choice, because the person involved like people of their opposite sex and they can choose other. Homosexuals, medically, can only choose guys. If we set a law prohibiting homosexual from sex, then we r depriving these minority a grave nature need especially when they have no fault of their own.
Second, incest can give defect children tat have very poor and adverse health conditions. It is no longer between 2 consenting adults but involved a third party here. And the children lives can be very short, very miserable and very painful for all parties. Homosexual does not give such problems.
Third, incest involves people who have significant influence over others such as a father to a daughter or a brother to a sister. They can influence the latter to have sex with them due to their dependence and influence on them which should be discouraged. Homosexual do not have such problems. Their relationship does not involved family members but people from society, which is not different from other straight relationship.
Hence I conclude these 2 acts r not the same, incest being one tat caused greater problems to society and therefore there is no contradiction in banning incest while allowing homosexual to have sex. Tis is further amplified by the fact tat the anti gay people r speechless over why gays should be outlawed. They cannot even state a single reason why despite being challenged many times
Now the anti gay people bring in AIDs people to show tat having defective children shoudn't be considered when debating whether should incest be allowed. I find tat he is simply trying to confuse the fact tat incest give defective children is true. Nobody can deny tat incest can give defective children, and tat make it worse than homosexual, and tis is a valid consideration.
Should AIDs patient be criminised ?
My personal view is tat AIDs patient must inform their sexual partner of their condition prior to having a sexual act to protect the partner. In tis sense I support legislation against AIDs patient, which is consistent with my view on incest. However tis is far far away from the original discussion about homosexual. -
An example is the motorcycle. Generally motorcycle caused more accidents than cars. Law makers have to take tis point into consideration before setting the law on the use of motorcycle. Tat is why licensing of motorcycle (full class 2 compared with full class 3) is more difficult than cars. Some people can argue tat if the motorcyclist is careful, then there will be no accidents. But tat is in an ideal case and from statistics, things go to normal distribution after a large sample. Law makers have to take accidents from motorocycle as a consideration in forming laws regarding to motorcycles. And tat is why we should take into consideration incest can give defective birth when we talk about incest.
-
You sure are dumb, aren't you?Originally posted by stupidissmart:People tat support 377A to be around used incest as a ground to attack people who r against the existence of 377A. There r some similarities between the 2. Incest also deal with an act in private, much like homosexual. Both appears to harm no other party of society except the issue or reproduction. If incest is prohibited, while not prohibit homosexual ?
You still don't get what I'm trying to bring across here, the hypocrisy of people defending gays.
And to defend that you are not dumb, you insist that I'm not true in my heart. Hah .. when you can't defend your stand about incest (not homosexual) intelligently, you resort to ad hominem attacks.My arguments r incest is much worse than homosexual. First thing is, homosexual r inborn while incest is not inborn. Incest is a choice, because the person involved like people of their opposite sex and they can choose other.
They can choose other, this is true. But does this mean you can force them not to choose this?Second, incest can give defect children tat have very poor and adverse health conditions. It is no longer between 2 consenting adults but involved a third party here. And the children lives can be very short, very miserable and very painful for all parties.
They can give defect children, just like sex with HIV person can give birth to a HIV child. Likewise with syphilis or gonorrhea.Third, incest involves people who have significant influence over others such as a father to a daughter or a brother to a sister. They can influence the latter to have sex with them due to their dependence and influence on them which should be discouraged.
You are muddling the issue. If the girl is underage, it will be criminal anyway. In general, if one party is too young, it is considered child abuse. So please do not muddle these scenarios with the archtype scenario.Tis is further amplified by the fact tat the anti gay people r speechless over why gays should be outlawed. They cannot even state a single reason why despite being challenged many times
Are you sure they cannot state a single reason? Or issit you do not think theirs is any reason at all?
You are trying to confuse the reader. Mandatory declaration has nothing to do with the issue at all. If anything, I also support mandatory declaration.
Should AIDs patient be criminised ?
My personal view is tat AIDs patient must inform their sexual partner of their condition prior to having a sexual act to protect the partner. In tis sense I support legislation against AIDs patient, which is consistent with my view on incest. However tis is far far away from the original discussion about homosexual.
I realize you consistently avoided my question of why HIV sex is not criminalised. If your reasoning about banning incest is valid, then consensual HIV sex should have been criminalised long ago. -
When did I say we should not take into consideration that incest can give defective birth? SIS .. you sure are good at attacking strawmen, aren't you?Originally posted by stupidissmart:An example is the motorcycle. Generally motorcycle caused more accidents than cars. Law makers have to take tis point into consideration before setting the law on the use of motorcycle. Tat is why licensing of motorcycle (full class 2 compared with full class 3) is more difficult than cars. Some people can argue tat if the motorcyclist is careful, then there will be no accidents. But tat is in an ideal case and from statistics, things go to normal distribution after a large sample. Law makers have to take accidents from motorocycle as a consideration in forming laws regarding to motorcycles. And tat is why we should take into consideration incest can give defective birth when we talk about incest.
However, just as govt do not ban motorcycles while tightening the licensing (this is your point, i dunno what licensing you talking about), the govt should not ban incest too. -
Here is what I think:Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on, anybody can tell tat u r not speaking from your heart. U r trying to use incest as a means to say why homosexual should be banned. U don't care about incest at all. When it comes to listing the problems of homosexual, u r speechless.
Then lets make an agreement. If u really think homosexual should not be banned, then we agree with each other and leave things as it is.
If u think incest should not be banned, then u have to treat it as a totally different thing and leave homosexual out of it. I have listed why incest is different from homosexual and tat is why incest should be criminised but not homosexual. Otherwise u have to convince why these 2 completely different things r the same
I do not see the matter as whether homosexual should be banned or not. After all, they are already banned now. So no point asking whether they should be banned or not.
However, and I bold my reply to show I'm not hiding anything, if the scenario is such that parliament is debating whether to enact a law banning them, assuming 377 does not exist at all, then I agree with the majority of you here that homosexual should not be banned.
I'm not sure what PRP thinks for the above situation. I can respect his view that homo is not right, however if he thinks it is right to enact a law like 377, then I will have to disagree with him.
Back to reality. The reality now is that while consenting sodomy is still banned, the law is not actively enforced. Or should I say, not enforced at all. I think this is something we can be proud of, in a country famous for her death penalty for a mere 15g of heroin .. *gulp*
The reality is also that despite the imagery many forummers try to bring across - gays as a discriminated, almost persecuted group of people - gays are enjoying never before freedom and rights in our society. This is also something we can be proud.
I agree with what happieman? wrote - just let it die. After some time, they will not be criminalised.
How .. SIS .. shiok or not .. after reading my reply? -
then I agree with the majority of you here that homosexual should not be banned.
Haha... I am too lazy to write a reply for your other points after reading your stand. I also agree we should just let the thread die a natural death.
But tat have to depend on PRP response. Frankly speaking I find his view on homosexual appalling. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
The answer for this is very simple ..
I believe I have answered your question in my typical one-liner way.
Now can you answer my question?
[b]Let's assume homo is a choice, like if APA makes a statement saying it is. Then do you think homo should be criminalised?[/b]
The gays will say no, and the extremists will say yes ..
In Singapore, gays are now not criminalised !! gay sex is ... but it is a matter of time this will change .. whether you like it or not !! -
We were laughing .. when reading this message of yours ..Originally posted by Icemoon:This SIS very funny. He's still thinking I am against homo.
we are agree you are against homo ...
you are a "regular" in this thread ... if you are not a supporter of human rights/gay .... then what are you? (neutral ppl wou;t stay in the thread for so long)...
Not gay, not human right supporter, not neutral ... then you must be anti-gay ..
So, SIS is not funny ! -
There was a debate in a Gay Christian Church on the topic - Incest ..Originally posted by stupidissmart:Allow me to summarise the whole argument of incest so far. If anyone think I am wrong, they r free to correct me
People tat support 377A to be around used incest as a ground to attack people who r against the existence of 377A. There r some similarities between the 2. Incest also deal with an act in private, much like homosexual. Both appears to harm no other party of society except the issue or reproduction. If incest is prohibited, while not prohibit homosexual ?
My arguments r incest is much worse than homosexual. First thing is, homosexual r inborn while incest is not inborn. Incest is a choice, because the person involved like people of their opposite sex and they can choose other. Homosexuals, medically, can only choose guys. If we set a law prohibiting homosexual from sex, then we r depriving these minority a grave nature need especially when they have no fault of their own.
Second, incest can give defect children tat have very poor and adverse health conditions. It is no longer between 2 consenting adults but involved a third party here. And the children lives can be very short, very miserable and very painful for all parties. Homosexual does not give such problems.
Third, incest involves people who have significant influence over others such as a father to a daughter or a brother to a sister. They can influence the latter to have sex with them due to their dependence and influence on them which should be discouraged. Homosexual do not have such problems. Their relationship does not involved family members but people from society, which is not different from other straight relationship.
Hence I conclude these 2 acts r not the same, incest being one tat caused greater problems to society and therefore there is no contradiction in banning incest while allowing homosexual to have sex. Tis is further amplified by the fact tat the anti gay people r speechless over why gays should be outlawed. They cannot even state a single reason why despite being challenged many times
Now the anti gay people bring in AIDs people to show tat having defective children shoudn't be considered when debating whether should incest be allowed. I find tat he is simply trying to confuse the fact tat incest give defective children is true. Nobody can deny tat incest can give defective children, and tat make it worse than homosexual, and tis is a valid consideration.
Should AIDs patient be criminised ?
My personal view is tat AIDs patient must inform their sexual partner of their condition prior to having a sexual act to protect the partner. In tis sense I support legislation against AIDs patient, which is consistent with my view on incest. However tis is far far away from the original discussion about homosexual.
NOTE: This is not my personal view ...
What's wrong with brother and sister with protected sex ?
What's wrong with brother and brother with protected sex ? -
Dear Stupid,
I was impressed up to the point where incest was introduced.
You fell into the trap of discussing a subject you had strong emotions about (incest) and that you (obviously) hadn't spent much time thinking about and it showed in your arguments.
Debates are primarily intended to broaden our minds by allowing us to see the world through another person's eyes. Secondly that we learn something about ourselves and the world in the process.
Beware of the temptation to indulge in side effects like using threats and insults to browbeat another into submission or attempting to prove the superiority of one view over the other or making fun of the other person or "educating" the other person into adopting a common view are regrettable or being a comedian or making the other person so angry they end up making fools of themselves or derailing the subject to another or throwing lots of questions to distract people or using emotional triggers.
-
How come your one sentence so long?Originally posted by phil30k:Beware of the temptation to indulge in side effects like using threats and insults to browbeat another into submission or attempting to prove the superiority of one view over the other or making fun of the other person or "educating" the other person into adopting a common view are regrettable or being a comedian or making the other person so angry they end up making fools of themselves or derailing the subject to another or throwing lots of questions to distract people or using emotional triggers. -
not bad ar this thread...still going on strong and slowly..
-
If I am against homo just by what i wrote, then you people are surely anti anti gay in the extreme position with the kind of replies in this thread.Originally posted by happieman:We were laughing .. when reading this message of yours ..
we are agree you are against homo ...
you are a "regular" in this thread ... if you are not a supporter of human rights/gay .... then what are you? (neutral ppl wou;t stay in the thread for so long)...
Not gay, not human right supporter, not neutral ... then you must be anti-gay ..
So, SIS is not funny !
This SIS is the worst. In his attempt to make sure all opposing viewpoints [to his] are crushed, he spares no effort in knocking down ALL of his opponent's points, without even reading the points that are put across.
IMHO this thread is not about uplifitng the ban against gay sex. You are not a parliament member, neither am I and I don't think the govt will consult our view in reaching a decision whether to repeal the whole 377. Heck, why is there an urgency to uplift the ban since gays are not prosecuted anyway? We should be more concerned about rising costs and foreign competition.
IMHO again, this thread is about idealism. The idealism that people holding minority views and practising minority habits should not be criminalised. So gays practising sodomy should not be criminalised. Neither should you guys be so harsh on PRP, who is obviously holding a minority view here. I suppose if you guys go to a fundamentalist xtian forum, you guys will be the minority .. hehe.
The topic of incest has everything to do with this idealism. Contrary to what SIS thinks, incest law is there not mainly because it will bring about defect children. If my guess is correct, incest law exists everywhere (except Japan and France from what I read) because it is a societal taboo. Just like homosexuality in the past, in Christian nations.
If it is a societal taboo, we can challenge it. I don't think it is too much to state incestuous acts can be seen as consensual acts between adults privately, which is not so much different from adults practising sodomy, if you ask me.
Till now, SIS has avoided my question of why sex with HIV patient is not criminalised, considering the rate at which it is spreading. His reply that there should be mandatory divulging of condition is nothing more than a red herring. -
I was also laughing.Originally posted by happieman:We were laughing .. when reading this message of yours ..
A bunch of hypocrites making noise here. The zest to uplift the ban against sodomy disappeared when it comes to incest. And all the talk about not taking away other's rights disappeared. -
Notice SIS has not really answered my question. If homo is a choice, should gays be criminalised? Using his logic, they should, because they can choose not to do it, just like incest!Originally posted by happieman:The answer for this is very simple ..
The gays will say no, and the extremists will say yes ..
In Singapore, gays are now not criminalised !! gay sex is ... but it is a matter of time this will change .. whether you like it or not !!
Yup, it is just a matter of time .. when there is more consensus about the matter. -
I am not sure about SIS answer to this ...Originally posted by Icemoon:Notice SIS has not really answered my question. If homo is a choice, should gays be criminalised? Using his logic, they should, because they can choose not to do it, just like incest!
Yup, it is just a matter of time .. when there is more consensus about the matter.
But others' view is whether of homo is a choice, it should not be criminalised by just he is gay alone. Similarly, we cannot decriminalise a straight guy like you by just u r a straight guy! Howeverr, if you rape a woman when you are a straight guy, you should be decriminalised ! Whether a straight or gay is a personal issue.
Anyway , just to inform you (Although mentioned so many times), Gay is not a choice ... whether you like it or not ... -
We only see two hypocrites in this thread ... Icemoon .. guess in your heart you know who are these .. heh heh (No reply needed)Originally posted by Icemoon:I was also laughing.
A bunch of hypocrites making noise here. The zest to uplift the ban against sodomy disappeared when it comes to incest. And all the talk about not taking away other's rights disappeared.