Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders
-
Geys should heed the good advice (msg above)of Dumbdumb!
-
i'm just an ignorant person, and its just my humble opinion la. i hope it isn't a hateful opinion thoughOriginally posted by PRP:Geys should heed the good advice (msg above)of Dumbdumb! -
It's not up to the homosexuals to prove why homosexuality is right, it's up to the homophobics to prove why it is wrong. Stop shifting the burden of proof.
And no, a 3000-year book of fables does not and can never count.
Seriously, pandering to right-wing religious nutjobs...I can feel I'm almost in the American Deep South. How long more to a (multireligious) theocracy? -
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
i'm only thinking about the kids, imagine they adopt a boy, then he grew up thinking he was gay and it was normal. but actually he's straight.
it might be just my ignorance la, but that's still my biggest concern.
Don't use ignorance as an excuse. You have a chance to be enlightened.
Straight people, by definition, will never find homosexuality normal. But they can find it acceptable. Do you think a straight person will turn gay because he thinks it's okay for other people to have homosexual sex? I would venture to say no. I'm straight and I think being gay is not normal, but I'm totally okay with other people doing it and I have absolutely no desire to participate in homosexual activity. Also, my girlfriend would kill me for cheating on her.
Anyway, who's to say that everyone has to be normal? What's next? Making long hair illegal? Banning people who like to sleep naked or people who prefer to sleep in pajamas (whatever is considered normal)? Maybe it should be illegal for men to pee sitting down.
what's next? people with bestiality issues wanting the rights to screw their pet dogs?
The issue here (for the 13517871th time) is consent. Sex with children is illegal because they are below the age of consent. We don't know when exactly children are able to give consent, so we arbitrarily assign an age of 16 as the age of consent. Some children are mature enough to give consent as young as 13, some will never be mature enough (Britney Spears). However, we hope that 16 is a good compromise.
Now if you have a dog who can say, "hey baby, I want you to screw me in the ass. Hard." Please let me know. -
And why aren't you guys campaigning to re-establish the laws making oral and anal sex illegal?
And what's the normal position for sex? Should doggie style be illegal? Or Missionary? And probably all of the positions in the Kama Sutra save one?
I guess it's also not normal for people to defecate while sitting. Squat toilets are normal and all sit-down toilets should be illegal. -
then u have a mexican stand off. if you don't respect their beliefs, why should they respect yours?Originally posted by rooki:It's not up to the homosexuals to prove why homosexuality is right, it's up to the homophobics to prove why it is wrong. Stop shifting the burden of proof.
And no, a 3000-year book of fables does not and can never count.
Seriously, pandering to right-wing religious nutjobs...I can feel I'm almost in the American Deep South. How long more to a (multireligious) theocracy?
it goes both ways, you can't demand others to believe otherwise of what they believe, you can try to enlighten them, but you can never force them.
so if the gays want their rights, they will have to convince the public. they can't demand everyone to conform to their beliefs.
this goes both ways also, if the law originally allow gays to legally proclaim their lifestyle and have sex legally (it sounds dumb la, cause they are already hving sex, legal or illegally, like the p0rn issue)
the religious rights will have to convince the public why it should not be accepted, and not demand everyone to conform to their believes just because. -
well, i'll believe you when you are raised in a homosexual environment with no heterosexual exposure, and still turn out normal without any inclination of homosexual desires.
Don't use ignorance as an excuse. You have a chance to be enlightened.
Straight people, by definition, will never find homosexuality normal. But they can find it acceptable. Do you think a straight person will turn gay because he thinks it's okay for other people to have homosexual sex? I would venture to say no. I'm straight and I think being gay is not normal, but I'm totally okay with other people doing it and I have absolutely no desire to participate in homosexual activity. Also, my girlfriend would kill me for cheating on her.
me, for one, can never agree with their lifestyle, nor accept it, but i don't go on a witchhunt and i'm fine with them doing whatever they wanna do behind closed doors.
i repeat.. its just like p0rn, its illegal, but if you're doing whatever you're doing privately, it doesn't really affect your life because nobody is actively monitoring you because its a by-right, by-left issue. (by right, its illegal, but everyone close one eye)
gays are acting on principle.
are they being hunted down and killed, are they being tortured? are they hiding underground or fearing for their lives like the religious ppl in china because of their lifestyle?
i'll start standing for them if these start happening
but they're not. they still go on with life per normal, they have jobs, they party, they have sex, they have relationships. have anyone being arrested so far for that?
even by declaring themselves gay publicly, everyone knows that they probably had sex etc, but nobody is arresting them still wat. so what are they complaining about?
what they want is everyone to just change their beliefs, and that's threading over the line. they're not asking for education of the public, so that the public will understand the gay lifestyle more.
they're demanding that everyone agree that being gay is right. which is too much to ask for really. -
Is principle not important? Why did we end the practice of slavery? Should we have kept the practice of slavery and just established laws that you can't beat your slave too hard?Originally posted by dumbdumb!:well, i'll believe you when you are raised in a homosexual environment with no heterosexual exposure, and still turn out normal without any inclination of homosexual desires.
me, for one, can never agree with their lifestyle, nor accept it, but i don't go on a witchhunt and i'm fine with them doing whatever they wanna do behind closed doors.
i repeat.. its just like p0rn, its illegal, but if you're doing whatever you're doing privately, it doesn't really affect your life.
gays are acting on principle. are they being hunted down and killed? are they hiding underground or fearing for their lives like the religious ppl in china?
By the way, religious persecution is really a myth. The religious repeat it to themselves so often that they believe it. Throughout history, it has been the religious who are the persecutors. The greatest persecution of religion is done by other religious people.
By the way, saying that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is not a belief. It's a fact. Saying someone is homosexual is like saying the sky is blue. If the bible said that blue skies are evil, would you curse the sky?
Give me a single, non-religious reason why homosexuality should be considered ethically wrong. -
i updated my previous post.
-
lol, then you're the ignorant one. the religious persecution in china is very real. now its so much better, but a few years back, things are really the pits. even usa commented on it.Originally posted by Phaze:Is principle not important? Why did we end the practice of slavery? Should we have kept the practice of slavery and just established laws that you can't beat your slave too hard?
By the way, religious persecution is really a myth. The religious repeat it to themselves so often that they believe it. Throughout history, it has been the religious who are the persecutors. The greatest persecution of religion is done by other religious people.
By the way, saying that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is not a belief. It's a fact. Saying someone is homosexual is like saying the sky is blue. If the bible said that blue skies are evil, would you curse the sky?
Give me a single, non-religious reason why homosexuality should be considered ethically wrong.
i refer back to the p0rn issue. there's nothing physically wrong with p0rn, just morally. but everyone's watching it, and they're fine with it. they could act on principle and demand that p0rn be legalized in singapore, just like usa. but nobody does it, because their lives are not affected.
i just think the whole issue is really boh liao. are the gay lifestyle affected by the law? from what i see and hear from my gay friends, they're not affected at all.
the law's just there la, but there's no action taken so far against gays. so i really don't know what they are making noise about.
and as for your comment:
its a fact for you, but its not a fact for everyone. so you cannot just demand for everyone to follow your beliefs just because you think its right.
By the way, saying that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is not a belief. It's a fact. Saying someone is homosexual is like saying the sky is blue. If the bible said that blue skies are evil, would you curse the sky?
that's kinda like censorship. if i belief that the gay lifestyle is wrong, how can you demand that i lie through my teeth to say that gay is right? -
I state my motive first.I debate here for fun.So i speak honestly.
Why is debating for fun=honest ? I think trying to be a flamebait is more fun and tat is wat u r doingPpl who oppose to repealing 377a are not intolerant of geys' lifestyle.The law has been there for a long time and there was a purpose for enacting the law.Anal sex is an unnatural sex.The geys have higher percentage of ppl infected with AIDS.These 2 reasons show that anal sex is wrong & bad.
People who donate blood get AIDs as well. So blood donation is bad ? People who r straight have AIDs too, then people should have not sex as well. The policemen here last time wear short pants for a long time. So they should not change to long pants ?If the homo supporters can convince us that homo is right & good,then of course anal sex shouldn't be a crime.But geys say homo is no right or wrong.I say no such thing.If geys can't show homo is good & right. many ppl still think that it is wrong & inmoral.
U think it is wrong and immoral, it is your own business. U just have to mind your own business. If u ask me, the sins of homo is only the impossibility of reproduction and tat is their business. From tis aspect it is as sinful as fathers or sisters sworning a life of calibracy. Those who refuse to have children r equally guilty. Monks r no exceptioni'm only thinking about the kids, imagine they adopt a boy, then he grew up thinking he was gay and it was normal. but actually he's straight.
I am also thinking about tis kid, who can go out and have lot of children and have a wonderful family life, but end up being a Priest in a catholic church because he is convinced by another catholic father. Does tat means being a father = bad life ? Does being gay = bad life ? He is normal or gay, as long as he is happy it is his choice isn't it
they're protesting just because they want to force everyone to agree with them that being gay isn't wrong, (biologically or morally), and that's really asking for too much.
Wat is wrong with being gay ? Specifically tell me wat is the wrong thing he did ? -
that's why i never talk about the religious implications, i'm just saying, they can't demand everyone to lie about how they feel about this issue.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wat is wrong with being gay ?
they're not asking for public education, in a sense, they're asking that everyone lie about how they feel just to make them feel more accepted.
you can't ask for that wat.I am also thinking about tis kid, who can go out and have lot of children and have a wonderful family life, but end up being a Priest in a catholic church because he is convinced by another catholic father. Does tat means being a father = bad life ? Does being gay = bad life ? He is normal or gay, as long as he is happy it is his choice isn't it Rolling Eyes
firstly, i'm not catholic, and 2ndly they ARE happily living their lives. are they being arrested for having sex? are they arrested for having a relationship? are they being arrested for leaving their houses?
they are not. they are living life as per normal. i respect their choice, i don't have to agree with it, but i am seriously fine with whatever they do behind closed doors and don't offend anyone with their lifestyle.
heck this part is tricky, because even girls now can sue guys for sending a box of condoms as a bday gift, so i can't really define a black and white statement about other people feeling offended.
but what are they unhappy about? they're not being hunted like witches for their lifestyle. and openly declaring you're gay, is as good as telling everyone you did have sex with another man (i have yet to find a gay who didn't engage in physical intimacy yet), are they being arrested?
anyway bottomline is, you cannot demand that others change their viewpoints just because. it's like i can't tell you to conform and lie about your feelings regarding religion. i can only give you my opinions, if you agree, fine, if you don't, i have to leave it as that.
and that's what the gays should adopt. state their beliefs and allow others the freedom to choose how they want to react to it. so long as they're not physically endangered and discriminated against.
you can't demand everyone to lie about how they truly feel about issues -
that's why i never talk about the religious implications, i'm just saying, they can't demand everyone to lie about how they feel about this issue.
U still have not answer the question. Wat have they done wrong ? To me the biggest problem is only reproduction.
they're not asking for public education, in a sense, they're asking that everyone lie about how they feel just to make them feel more accepted.
you can't ask for that wat.firstly, i'm not catholic, and 2ndly they ARE happily living their lives. are they being arrested for having sex? are they arrested for having a relationship? are they being arrested for leaving their houses?
In the eye of the law, if u follow the law tat stays, they r. If u do not like gays or do not support their view and propaganda, u can voice it out in other ways. Why enforce it from the view of law ? U can voice out your opposition, u can write in forums and hand out pamphlet etc. U can write a petition to voice your concern. But forcefully let an outdated law to remain tat make a group outlawed ? I think tat is bad taste. -
U still have not answer the question. Wat have they done wrong ? To me the biggest problem is only reproduction.
what have the guy who sent a box of condom to a girl as a joke done wrong?
huh? i didn't get what you're putting across. is there smth wrong with me voicing my opinion from the view of the law?
In the eye of the law, if u follow the law tat stays, they r. If u do not like gays or do not support their view and propaganda, u can voice it out in other ways. Why enforce it from the view of law ? -
n the eye of the law, if u follow the law tat stays, they r. If u do not like gays or do not support their view and propaganda, u can voice it out in other ways. Why enforce it from the view of law ? U can voice out your opposition, u can write in forums and hand out pamphlet etc. U can write a petition to voice your concern. But forcefully let an outdated law to remain tat make a group outlawed ? I think tat is bad taste.
i think i explained this in the previous post,
lets just say the roles were reversed, and gays are legislated to be legal, which doesn't change anything about their living conditions, then now religious rights will have to convince the public why the laws should be changed. it would be wrong if the religious rights demand the laws to be changed just because. they have to state their reasons, and allow the public the freedom to decide how to react. whether they're convinced enough to change the law, or to leave the law as that.
but too bad, now the laws are not advantageous to the gay community, so its now the gays' move to convince the public why the laws should be changed, and not demand it and send hate mails because the general public don't agree with their lifestyle.
i don't think you understand what my opinion is.
my opinion is that gays are demanding that everyone lie about how they feel about this issue.
sure if you can convince me that gay is natural and there is no negative implications, i'm sold. but if i'm not convinced, how can you demand that i feel that gay is alright? just because?
again it would be very different if people are dragging gays out and stoning them in public. that would be wrong, and of course it would be natural for gays to demand that their lifestyle be legalized, because their lives are in danger.
but that's not the case isn't it? -
Haha... once again, no. No one is asking anyone to lie about the way they feel. Anyone can be as bigoted as they wish.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:i think i explained this in the previous post,
lets just say the roles were reversed, and gays are legislated to be legal, which doesn't change anything about their living conditions, then now religious rights will have to convince the public why the laws should be changed. it would be wrong if the religious rights demand the laws to be changed just because. they have to state their reasons, and allow the public the freedom to decide how to react. whether they're convinced enough to change the law, or to leave the law as that.
but too bad, now the laws are not advantageous to the gay community, so its now the gays' move to convince the public why the laws should be changed, and not demand it and send hate mails because the general public don't agree with their lifestyle.
i don't think you understand what my opinion is.
my opinion is that gays are demanding that everyone lie about how they feel about this issue.
sure if you can convince me that gay is natural and there is no negative implications, i'm sold. but if i'm not convinced, how can you demand that i feel that gay is alright? just because?
again it would be very different if people are dragging gays out and stoning them in public. that would be wrong, and of course it would be natural for gays to demand that their lifestyle be legalized, because their lives are in danger.
but that's not the case isn't it?
If you are racist, please feel free to hate people of other races as you wish.
You should be free to say (though we have no freedom of speech in Singapore) that Malays are lazy, or Chinese people are greedy and would sell their own grandmothers for a buck, that Indians stink, etc.
But even if you are a racist, you should not be able to make racist laws.
I totally respect your right you dislike homosexuality. I think it's misguided and I would hope that reason would convince you to let go of your prejudice. But ultimately, I'm happy to agree to disagree.
When you support an unjust law that discriminates against homosexuals, that's a different story.
I never understood why we want to silence people anyway. Let's say David Duke was smart enough to keep is mouth shut, would everyone have known he was a racist? It's better to let people air their views. At least we know where the problems are and how much further we have to go as a society.
By the way, I do appreciate your posts. As you share your views, you have given me the opportunity to share mine as well. -
haha, yeah ok. lets agree to disagree.
-
Well you haven't answered the question why you have a problem with homosexuals then?Originally posted by dumbdumb!:that's why i never talk about the religious implications
Since you're not bringing up religious objections to homosexuality, please explain why you are so uncomfortable with homosexuals.
On a slightly related note, what are your views on pre-marital sex? Do you think that should be made illegal as well? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain the ethical/moral difference between pre-marital sex and homosexual sex. -
oh, there's a difference between my feelings regarding homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. i disagree with their lifestyle because i view it as wrong, and its primarily from a religious stand. but i don't have a problem with homosexuals as people, if that's what you're asking. but i do have a problem with the way they're approaching this issue.Originally posted by Phaze:Well you haven't answered the question why you have a problem with homosexuals then?
Since you're not bringing up religious objections to homosexuality, please explain why you are so uncomfortable with homosexuals.
On a slightly related note, what are your views on pre-marital sex? Do you think that should be made illegal as well? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain the ethical/moral difference between pre-marital sex and homosexual sex.
i did not bring it up because its kinda pointless since you don't agree with my religious stand, and it doesn't really affect my viewpoints about how gays are approaching this issue wrongly.
is it against the law to have premarital sex? if it is, then my views wouldn't really change anything, would it.
but from a religious point of view, its of course morally wrong.
whether pre-marital sex should be made illegal, it depends on what message this move is trying to convey.
because in the homosexual law, by legalizing it, it would be declaring an acceptance and acknowledgment that gay is alright, but to the majority of the public, it is not so. so it would be like forcing people to agree with things they don't agree with.
and the difference between pre marital sex is that one is a coupling with the right hole, and the other is a coupling with the wrong hole. -
As far as I know, it's not against the law. If such a law was proposed to outlaw pre-marital sex, would you support it?Originally posted by dumbdumb!:oh, there's a difference between my feelings regarding homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. i disagree with their lifestyle because i view it as wrong, and its primarily from a religious stand.
i did not bring it up because its kinda pointless since you don't agree with my religious stand, and it doesn't really affect my viewpoints about how gays are approaching this issue wrongly.
is it against the law to have premarital sex? if it is, then my views wouldn't really change anything, would it -
outlawing usually is done as a drastic measure. so i don't think its necessary. that's why they have groups doing educating the public regarding the issues of pre-marital sex.Originally posted by Phaze:As far as I know, it's not against the law. If such a law was proposed to outlaw pre-marital sex, would you support it? -
ok, if you will allow me to refer to abit of religious text, just to create some room for understanding from my pov.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:outlawing usually is done as a drastic measure. so i don't think its necessary. that's why they have groups doing educating the public regarding the issues of pre-marital sex.
this is the specific instructions regarding homosexuality at that time:
"And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination"
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
and these are the specific instructions regarding pre-marital sex at that time:
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Now I'm not sure whether in this case, it's a case of rape, or a case of consensual sex la. But I'll just see it as the same for now, until someone informs me otherwise.
as you can see, the bible although declares both deeds as morally wrong, but the compensation and restitutions are different, and the consequences are weighed differently.
now, you're free to reject biblical teachings as a guide for how we ought to live, but just humour me for now.
because this is how God view these 2 issues as different, that's why i don't think you can ask me to compare homosexual sex and pre-marital sex. and use homosexual sex constraints for the issue of pre-marital sex. -
what have the guy who sent a box of condom to a girl as a joke done wrong?
But there is no law saying tat guys cannot buy girls condom isn't it and u still have not answer the original question on wat have they done wrong. If u don't tell me, then u r just confused yourself.lets just say the roles were reversed, and gays are legislated to be legal, which doesn't change anything about their living conditions, then now religious rights will have to convince the public why the laws should be changed. it would be wrong if the religious rights demand the laws to be changed just because. they have to state their reasons, and allow the public the freedom to decide how to react. whether they're convinced enough to change the law, or to leave the law as that.
tat is a surprise because the religious people r the one tat condemned these people. If they condemn them, they have to explain. Now the law is against the gay, they have to explain more why they do such a thing. And most people r the silent majority. They just feel indifference to such a thing. It is the religion tat fuel their bigotrybut too bad, now the laws are not advantageous to the gay community, so its now the gays' move to convince the public why the laws should be changed, and not demand it and send hate mails because the general public don't agree with their lifestyle.
Sending hate mails, both side of the people did the same thing. General public don't agree with their lifestyle ? Can u show evidence on tat ?my opinion is that gays are demanding that everyone lie about how they feel about this issue.
U can feel hate or unease with them all u want u know. No one is asking u to lie. They just don't want to be outlawed. Does tat have anything to do with lying about your feeling ? -
oh, there's a difference between my feelings regarding homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. i disagree with their lifestyle because i view it as wrong, and its primarily from a religious stand. but i don't have a problem with homosexuals as people, if that's what you're asking. but i do have a problem with the way they're approaching this issue.
Muslim felt people eating pork r obscene too. But there is such a thing as religious freedom and tolerance. Wat u believe is your own business. U cannot force everyone to change for your belief. From your reply, u cannot state any problem from them.because in the homosexual law, by legalizing it, it would be declaring an acceptance and acknowledgment that gay is alright, but to the majority of the public, it is not so. so it would be like forcing people to agree with things they don't agree with.
Legalizing gays simply means gays r allowed to live in singapore legally. Not saying it is right or wrong or means everyone must accept gays or gays can do propaganda. U r mixing up the issues.
Furthermore, I believe the majority r slient. It is only the minority religious who r making the most noise. I am sure gays don't agree to it. Aren't religious people forcing people to agree with things they don't agree as well. -
But there is no law saying tat guys cannot buy girls condom isn't it and u still have not answer the original question on wat have they done wrong. If u don't tell me, then u r just confused yourself.
but there is a law regarding offending others via outrage of modesty, you don't have to show off your privates, or any part of your body, so long as the other party feels insulted, feels offended, its just as bad. and the truth is, now people are offended by the gay lifestyle. which is primarily the reason why the secular law still declares it illegal. i thought you could come to this conclusion yourself, but nvm.tat is a surprise because the religious people r the one tat condemned these people. If they condemn them, they have to explain. Now the law is against the gay, they have to explain more why they do such a thing. And most people r the silent majority. They just feel indifference to such a thing. It is the religion tat fuel their bigotry
religious people never condemned gays, but they don't agree with their lifestyle. apparently you condemn religion, but do you condemn the people practicing it? if you do, then you're no better than the worst of us. ok anyway, that's out of the point, why should you be surprised at my answer? lol, its really how i feel and that's really the way things should be done wat. you can't just enforce ppl to agree with you if they don't.Sending hate mails, both side of the people did the same thing. General public don't agree with their lifestyle ? Can u show evidence on tat ?
that's abit hard, but I'll give you a good 36% at least. consisting of praciticing buddhists, christians and muslims. and for the other 15%, they usually emerge when they found out their children are gay.
as for your point that both side did the same thing, that's why i said that if the roles were reversed, the religious rights should do the same thing. i don't think i was wrong in this sense.U can feel hate or unease with them all u want u know. No one is asking u to lie. They just don't want to be outlawed. Does tat have anything to do with lying about your feeling ?
but by demanding for us to agree with their lifestyle, thus legalizing their lifestyle, isn't that asking us to lie about our feelings about the issue?