Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders
-
but they are living in singapore legally. i don't see them in lockups or in concentration camps or living in some ghetto.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.
i see them at clubs, i see them on the streets, heck, some are celebrities in singapore!
and they practice their lifestyle privately.
the law pretty much just don't allow them to promote their lifestyle.
don't tell me that all the gays in singapore aren't having sex with one another privately because of this law, that's why they're protesting? -
Do you know the consequence of telling the world you have a law and you will not enforce it?
-
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.
well, they're silent until they found out their kids are gay. then you see their true reaction lor. then you will know where they actually stand.
look, the thing is, i try not to use religion on this one, so i'm just saying that the way gays are approaching the issue is off. and i feel that the law should not change just because they try to bend the public's arm.
ok, i'm not posting about this anymore. time to slp. night all
-
the consequence would be malaysia. lol.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Do you know the consequence of telling the world you have a law and you will not enforce it?
okok that was a joke, but well, tada. -
Ahh okay. So why was the drastic measure of outlawing homosexuality necessary?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. -
There is some truth to what you say - that they are silent until they realize a loved one is gay.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:well, they're silent until they found out their kids are gay. then you see their true reaction lor. then you will know where they actually stand.
look, the thing is, i try not to use religion on this one, so i'm just saying that the way gays are approaching the issue is off. and i feel that the law should not change just because they try to bend the public's arm.
ok, i'm not posting about this anymore. time to slp. night all
I have a friend (not a close one) who is gay. When his parents found out, they were heartbroken. First they were angry, then they were sad. They hoped and prayed it was just a phase. They forbade him to bring boyfriends home or to have boyfriends accompany him to family gatherings.
Then they realized it was not a phase, and sadness turned to despair. They wondered where they had gone wrong. They were a Christian family. The family was quite well off. They brought up their children the best they could.
But at the end of the day, they accepted him for who he is because he is their son and they love him. And they don't think he turned gay because he was seduced into the lifestyle. They realized he was gay because that was who he is.
Ultimately, they loved him for who he is.
Was my friend ever taught that homosexuality is normal? No. Did my friend go to sunday school every week? Yes. My friend had a Methodist upbringing and went to ACS.
Did my friend choose to be gay? No. Life would have been much easier for him if he had been straight. But would he have been happy? Probably not. -
Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for your answer.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:ok, if you will allow me to refer to abit of religious text, just to create some room for understanding from my pov.
this is the specific instructions regarding homosexuality at that time:
[b]"And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination"
now, you're free to reject biblical teachings as a guide for how we ought to live, but just humour me for now.
So you accept the fact that your dislike of homosexuality is fundamentally religious in nature. And yes, I accept that it is your perspective. And since you didn't give me a non-religious reason for homosexuality to be morally wrong, I assume there isn't one.
So please answer two more questions.
1. Why should someone who does not accept your religion be governed by your moral views? I understand that from your perspective, homosexuality is wrong. Now why should someone from a secular/non-religious perspective be subject to your religious edicts. Should it, for example, be illegal for a Christian to eat pork?
2. You quoted from Leviticus 18:22 which states:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
In the same book, Leviticus 11:9-12 states:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
So now do you advocate making prawns, crab, lobster, oysters and shellfish in general illegal? And we need to make shark's fin soup illegal as well (though that's a good idea but for different reasons) since sharks have no scales. -
You summed it up very nicely.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Do you know the consequence of telling the world you have a law and you will not enforce it? -
It borders on discrimination with regards to sexual orientation. Furthermore it may lead to certain members of the public to break a law and use the status of 377A as an example to be excused just because he/she thinks the law is unjust. One cannot deny the possibilty of such incidents in future. Let's make it all crystal clear; if you cannot and will not enforce a law, get rid of it. This law is a joke, it is a testament to the narrowmindedness and the inability of certain groups of people to think beyond themselves, evidence that our country is truly not ready for the world.
(edited due grammatical error) Hey, I try my best. -
Since this issue is about what is right and what is wrong, I move that we outlaw the use of sodium benzoate as a preservative due to its harmful effects which was revealed recently.
And if you oppose such a decision please give a reason.
[[Food additives can trigger hyperactivity in children, BritainÂ’s Food Standards Agency warned after scientists at Southampton University found certain artificial colors and sodium bezoate preservative had harmful effects on behavior. They were sunset yellow (E110), tartrazine (E102), carmoisine (E122), ponceau 4R (E124), quinoline yellow (E104), allura red (E129) and sodium benzoate (E211). The results are published in the Lancet medical journal.]] -
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.
Wat do u mean by the gay lifestyle ? If they do it privately wat has it got to do with u ?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.
I don't think so. I don't condemn religious people because I did not start a petition asking them to outlawed religious people. But I guess some religious people do. I am glad u knew u cannot enforce peole to agree with u on wat u believe in. Then why r u enforcing the authorities to agree with u by enforcing a law ?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.
Com'on... Wat makes u think everybody will have sons tat is gonna be gays when gays r allowed ? If u give such a biased conclusion then I can give one saying tat the 36% tat banned gays now will allow gay if they found themselves to be gays or have sons tat r gays but cannot be straight ever.
Furthermore, buddhist r not as focus on condemning gays as the other religionas 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 mean sending hate mails ? I thought they already didbut 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?
Legalising gays is not equal to accepting their lifestyle
It is acknowledging tat such a group of people existing in tis world. If u don't like it, nobody is asking to embrace them or force u to make friends with them. It is just to allow them to live legally.but they are living in singapore legally. i don't see them in lockups or in concentration camps or living in some ghetto.
They r not living legally because according tot he law they r outlawed. If u do not want them to live their life publicly, then u should just work on a law tat prohibit open gays activities and not banning them. There r other laws tat prohibit acts of indecency. 377A is simply banning gaysDo you know the consequence of telling the world you have a law and you will not enforce it?
I felt tat the whole thing is a joke. -
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have our first victim, even though it may be premature to tie it in with 377A
It seems that a particular Xbox game has been banned due to what they percieved as gay sexual behaviour being depicted, even though it is between a human and an alien.
Its in the ST.
There goes our freedom. SLowly....but surely. -
Originally posted by crosshairs:Ladies and gentlemen, I think we may have our first victim, even though it may be premature to tie it in with 377A
It seems that a particular Xbox game has been banned due to what they percieved as gay sexual behaviour being depicted, even though it is between a human and an alien.
Its in the ST.
There goes our freedom. SLowly....but surely.
sex b/w man and alien cannot even be labelled as heterosexual or homosexual sex... omg... hahahahhahahhahaa....sorry i just find this really damn funny...
unless the alien in the game had a d|ck??? too bad i have no access to the papers... im reminded of japanese hentai porn is tentacle sex between a female and an 'alien' considered heterosexual sex???????? -
Thanks for educating the ignorant and/or extremist.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wat is wrong with being gay ? Specifically tell me wat is the wrong thing he did ? -
No dicks. That's in direct violation of 377A. Its between 2 females.Originally posted by udontknowme:
sex b/w man and alien cannot even be labelled as heterosexual or homosexual sex... omg... hahahahhahahhahaa....sorry i just find this really damn funny...
unless the alien in the game had a d|ck??? too bad i have no access to the papers... im reminded of japanese hentai porn is tentacle sex between a female and an 'alien' considered heterosexual sex????????
How hot is it!
-
If the police want to enforce the law,they have to send in private eyes to see what ppl do in their private home.Do u wnat them do do that?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Do you know the consequence of telling the world you have a law and you will not enforce it? -
More pro-homo speak up and they are more fierce in their arguments,so they win
-
It's not pro-homo.Originally posted by PRP:More pro-homo speak up and they are more fierce in their arguments,so they win
It's pro human rights.
-
Yes,u r right.Principle is important.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.
The instinct of sex is herterosexual.So what is homo sex?Something has gone wrong to the natural instinct.
I say heterosex is right.Can u say homosex is right too?Eating is right.If one don't eat,he will die!So right sex is right,wrong sex is wrong.Sorry if geys don't like my argument. -
If the police want to enforce the law,they have to send in private eyes to see what ppl do in their private home.Do u wnat them do do that?
no need ma... u just need to know he is a gay then it is sufficient to catch him. He tell u he is a gay before, he ask u for sex before, u have sex with him before, he declares to the whol world he is a gay to prevent girls from liking him before etc is enough to enforce the law.The instinct of sex is herterosexual.So what is homo sex?Something has gone wrong to the natural instinct.
It is not hard to imagine. U like girls now right ? (i assume u r a guy) Wat if u r a girl now and u like girls ?I say heterosex is right.Can u say homosex is right too?Eating is right.If one don't eat,he will die!So right sex is right,wrong sex is wrong.Sorry if geys don't like my argument.
Well homo sex is as bad as not reproducing. If homo sex is wrong, then being monks or catholic priests r equally wrong. If he cannot have sex, he cannot reproduce. If u practise homo sex, u can't reproduce. Same outcome. -
I'm not gay and I don't like your argument because it is a very bad argument. Very very bad. Bad on so many levels I don't even know how to start explaining the problems with it. It reveals fundamental misunderstandings on what is 'natural' and ethics in general. But anyway, let's move beyond that for now.Originally posted by PRP:Yes,u r right.Principle is important.
The instinct of sex is herterosexual.So what is homo sex?Something has gone wrong to the natural instinct.
I say heterosex is right.Can u say homosex is right too?Eating is right.If one don't eat,he will die!So right sex is right,wrong sex is wrong.Sorry if geys don't like my argument.
Okay let's take your example, though I don't think you are using the word 'right' in the correct way.
Eating is "right" because you have to eat to live. As you pointed out, if you don't eat, you will eventually die, and death is generally considered a Bad Thing (though overeating is bad as well).
Homosexuality is "right" because when homosexuals improve their quality of life when they have consensual sex with other homosexuals of bisexuals. If homosexuals are denied the ability to have consensual sex with other homosexuality, they will be sexually frustrated and unhappy, and that is a Bad Thing.
Now let's get to your allegation that the instinct of sex is heterosexual, and that homosexuality is indicative of something having gone wrong with the 'natural' instinct.
I agree that homosexuality is a deviation from the normal sexual instinct. But there is nothing 'wrong' with it.
It's natural for my legs to be used for walking. If I use my leg to scratch my other leg, is that 'unnatural'? What about if I use my leg to kick a ball?
Your reasoning frightens me because it reflects a view that we moved away from years ago - and we are far better for it. Your view makes people suffer for what you feel is 'natural'.
Let me give you another example of your version of 'natural'/'right' and 'unnatural'/'wrong'. Many years ago, people thought that right handed was natural and left handed was unnatural. Right handedness was considered 'right' and left handedness was considered 'wrong'. In fact, sinister comes from the latin word for 'left'.
Parents and schools used to try to force left handed kids to use their right hand. This caused a lot of problems and prevented many kids from reaching their full potential as they were effectively handicapped.
We later realized that left-handedness, though 'unnatural' is perfectly okay.
Again, I find it amusing that you try to create the impression that 'geys' don't like your argument even though it makes sense. Your argument makes no sense. Period. -
You make a very good point.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Well homo sex is as bad as not reproducing. If homo sex is wrong, then being monks or catholic priests r equally wrong. If he cannot have sex, he cannot reproduce. If u practise homo sex, u can't reproduce. Same outcome.
By his reasoning, abstinence should be illegal. Hmm... that's actually a great idea! -
what you said =Originally posted by PRP:Yes,u r right.Principle is important.
The instinct of sex is herterosexual.So what is homo sex?Something has gone wrong to the natural instinct.
I say heterosex is right.Can u say homosex is right too?Eating is right.If one don't eat,he will die!So right sex is right,wrong sex is wrong.Sorry if geys don't like my argument.
I say non-PRPsex is right. Can u say PRPsex is right too?Eating is right. If one don't eat, he will die!So right sex is right, wrong sex is wrong. Sorry if PRPs don;t like my argument.
-
Heh...Originally posted by happieman:what you said =
I say non-PRPsex is right. Can u say PRPsex is right too?Eating is right. If one don't eat, he will die!So right sex is right, wrong sex is wrong. Sorry if PRPs don;t like my argument.
Well, at least he was trying to come up with an argument that wasn't fundamentally religious in nature.
Too bad it doesn't make sense. -
Your arguments are reasonable but not entirely corrrect.Originally posted by Phaze:I'm not gay and I don't like your argument because it is a very bad argument. Very very bad. Bad on so many levels I don't even know how to start explaining the problems with it. It reveals fundamental misunderstandings on what is 'natural' and ethics in general. But anyway, let's move beyond that for now.
Okay let's take your example, though I don't think you are using the word 'right' in the correct way.
Eating is "right" because you have to eat to live. As you pointed out, if you don't eat, you will eventually die, and death is generally considered a Bad Thing (though overeating is bad as well).
Homosexuality is "right" because when homosexuals improve their quality of life when they have consensual sex with other homosexuals of bisexuals. If homosexuals are denied the ability to have consensual sex with other homosexuality, they will be sexually frustrated and unhappy, and that is a Bad Thing.
Now let's get to your allegation that the instinct of sex is heterosexual, and that homosexuality is indicative of something having gone wrong with the 'natural' instinct.
I agree that homosexuality is a deviation from the normal sexual instinct. But there is nothing 'wrong' with it.
It's natural for my legs to be used for walking. If I use my leg to scratch my other leg, is that 'unnatural'? What about if I use my leg to kick a ball?
Your reasoning frightens me because it reflects a view that we moved away from years ago - and we are far better for it. Your view makes people suffer for what you feel is 'natural'.
Let me give you another example of your version of 'natural'/'right' and 'unnatural'/'wrong'. Many years ago, people thought that right handed was natural and left handed was unnatural. Right handedness was considered 'right' and left handedness was considered 'wrong'. In fact, sinister comes from the latin word for 'left'.
Parents and schools used to try to force left handed kids to use their right hand. This caused a lot of problems and prevented many kids from reaching their full potential as they were effectively handicapped.
We later realized that left-handedness, though 'unnatural' is perfectly okay.
Again, I find it amusing that you try to create the impression that 'geys' don't like your argument even though it makes sense. Your argument makes no sense. Period.
U said my argument made no sense.U are exaggerating your claim.It it realy make no sense,it would be very easy for u to rebut.
I'll probably rebut your arguments in some other days.I maintain my last arguments correct.