NMP Thio Makes 2nd Police Report
-
Your argument makes sense. Who knows if she is the one being dodgy and the only reason she gets away with it is due to the condition of parliamentary immunity.Originally posted by Gedanken:Politics and sanctimony aside, let's get back to the original point: the letter. It's anonymous, so what's to say that Thio didn't gin it up herself?
Reichstag 1933, anyone?
However, if the letter writer was found to be our own Laurence82, it wouldn't surprise me either. I have doubts about his sexuality considering his catty nature.
-
So u admit u bash me.So pls don't cry geys are the bashing boys!Originally posted by crosshairs:I will remove your doubt right now. I am bashing you. My agenda is to expose narrowminded people like you. Because you incite hate against a group of people for no better reason other than the fact that you do not share their gender orientation. They do no harm to you, yet you want to see them prosecuted, and you turn around and claim to be the victim. Ever seen a bully hit a boy and then in an instant run to the teacher and claim that he was bullied? That's being shameless. In case you didn't know, this is called discrimination. Discrimination of this nature has no place in the modern society.
You have a narrow worldview which can be simplified into the phrase "It's me against them, and I must be right so they must be wrong". It's like saying a coffee drinker is of a better class than a tea drinker. It's like saying red is better than blue. Of course people like you do not consider the possibility that you could have very well been born like them, and the tables would have turned. But no, I don't think you have the mental capacity to consider alternate events. All you do everyday is to harp on the fact that they cannot reproduce and you can, as if it is some sort of crime. If it were a crime, I challenge you to bring charges to all those who are unable or unwilling to reproduce through heterosexual intercourse.
All they were asking is to be left alone to do what they want to do. You know what that means? That means they don't want to bother you. And you must Kay Poh. KAY POH!!! You have a day job? You got mouths to feed? I don't think so. Its people who do not have any meaning in their lives who try to interfere in how other people lead their lives. And that is you. If you so hate their kind, then don't watch their shows, don't buy their goods, I am sure you can do without them having a part in your meaningless existence.
Pat Robertson loves people like you. And I am sure Ted Haggard wants to love you too. You should go to america and join Fred Phelps. They will welcome you with open arms and you can find plenty of love in their embrace.
Do u have a selfish motive on this topic?
My position is i accept geys but homo is wrong.I can't debate with a basher. -
Originally posted by PRP:So u admit u bash me.So pls don't cry geys are the bashing boys!
Do u have a selfish motive on this topic?
My position is i accept geys but homo is wrong.I can't debate with a basher. -
As you said it so clearly and I said it just as clearly, I am bashing you, and it is not a debate.
-
Not ALL homosexuals are bashing you. Some are heterosexuals that have been bashing your argument, and I am one of them as well.Originally posted by PRP:So u admit u bash me.So pls don't cry geys are the bashing boys!
Do u have a selfish motive on this topic?
My position is i accept geys but homo is wrong.I can't debate with a basher.
Can you even accept this fact? -
Question thrown to the floor:
What do you guys think of people who claim to accept gays but frown upon homosexuality? -
I suppose you can have gay friends but you frown upon their lifestyle.Originally posted by crosshairs:Question thrown to the floor:
What do you guys think of people who claim to accept gays but frown upon homosexuality?
It is the same with gambling isn't it?
-
This is my question too.Originally posted by faroukalhadad:They want to dismantle 377A AS A PRECEDENT for other concessions. After this law does no longer exist, it opens the way for them to ask for marital rights, same sex marriage, apply for HDB flat for male-male couple etc.
Think.
Even if the government is not inconsistent now, it will be inconsistent later when the lobby for marital rights and same sex marriage starts.
It will also be inconsistent too if some pervert asks for the incest law to be removed, or bestality to be legal.
*shrugs* -
The argument given for 377A is one that looks at the big picture and potential implications.Originally posted by lansin.party:Hi. Can i ask,
Will you endorse a law that says
"The use of the Indian Language should be banned and any offender will be fined $1000" OR
"The eating of bread as a religious act is an offence liable to 5 weeks in jail"
if the government ASSURES you this law is a paper tiger and will never ever be enforced?
Since the law is not enforced, then it is not discriminatory to Indians/Christians, so going by the same argument you give for 377A, isn't it acceptable to make the above two statements laws?
So my counter-challenge to you is,
1. So what if the Indian language is NOT banned?
2. So what if the eating of bread as religious act is allowed?
But I think you are blurring the issues. The crux of 377A is about acts behind closed doors. Is the Indian language mainly used behind closed doors? -
My research lecturer taught us the use of "so what" last night in class.Originally posted by Icemoon:The argument given for 377A is one that looks at the big picture and potential implications.
So my counter-challenge to you is,
1. So what if the Indian language is NOT banned?
2. So what if the eating of bread as religious act is allowed?
But I think you are blurring the issues. The crux of 377A is about acts behind closed doors. Is the Indian language mainly used behind closed doors?
Important question to ask to help put things in perspective.
-
After 377a is repealed,
1) I want to have the option of being able to legally buy a house(hdb) flat with my partner...yes. Food / Shelter / Clothing - Thanks Maslow~
2) I want to be able to get married to my partner and have our marriage recognised constitutionally....Not so much.Seeing as how the marriage system is generally a failure amongst the heterosexual crowd, i don't see why homosexuals should follow in their footsteps.
3) I want to be able to adopt. No. But thats because personally i don't think I would make a good father. I'm much too strict and 'anal' <---pardon the pun, about life issues and how things should be to allow for an open and accepting learning environment. This is a characteristic flaw...not a flaw defined by sexuality.
--------------------------------------
So yes....377a is just the first step.
I see so many deny it...and avoid the subject all together when the discussion veers in the direction of "long term"....mainly because it would hurt the argument 'in the now' ...and the opposition is using the "long term" objectives in their argument against the 'first step'.
but if i apply icemoon's "so what" notion....
1) So what if i want to apply for a hdb flat with my partner?
2) So what if i want to get legally married to my partner?
3) So what if i would want to adopt and provide a loving, nurturing environment for a child?
Can anyone answer these questions without using the notions...
a) Because its not the way god intended
b) Just because its not natural
c) It's not how things have been practiced in the past
d) The child will grow up screwed up
e) The population of Singapore will decline
---------------------------------------
Open question to everyone, regardless of their standpoint on the issue -
Originally posted by crosshairs:Question thrown to the floor:
What do you guys think of people who claim to accept gays but frown upon homosexuality?
-
This issue goes beyond whatever is in 377A.Originally posted by Clandestine:I see so many deny it...and avoid the subject all together when the discussion veers in the direction of "long term"....mainly because it would hurt the argument 'in the now' ...and the opposition is using the "long term" objectives in their argument against the 'first step'.
How about 376 (incest)? Who is to say incest is forbidden if the couple loves each other?
How about beastality? Necrophilia?
In fact, why should underage sex be criminal if defense can show the girl is the initiator and fully aware of the consequences? -
Yes, it does all go against nature, doesn't it?Originally posted by Icemoon:This issue goes beyond whatever is in 377A.
How about 376 (incest)? Who is to say incest is forbidden if the couple loves each other?
How about beastality? Necrophilia?
In fact, why should underage sex be criminal if defense can show the girl is the initiator and fully aware of the consequences? -
Actually it doesn't.Originally posted by Gedanken:Yes, it does all go against nature, doesn't it?
No wait .. it depends on what you mean by going against nature. Homosexuality seems to be quite common in nature, yet this behaviour is not very darwinian in nature. Isn't it the nature of living things to reproduce?
wah .. so many 'nature' in one reply .. think got fallacy liao.
-
I'm just trying to get a sense of why you would introduce bestiality, necrophilia and incest into a discussion about homosexuality. As far as I can tell, the common thread seems to be the "against nature" argument, but could you clarify?
-
You don't really understand the idea of "nature", do you? And where does Darwin start talking about homosexuality?Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually it doesn't.
No wait .. it depends on what you mean by going against nature. Homosexuality seems to be quite common in nature, yet this behaviour is not very darwinian in nature. Isn't it the nature of living things to reproduce?
wah .. so many 'nature' in one reply .. think got fallacy liao. -
I think the arguments made for homosexuality can be used to support the repeal of laws concerning bestiality, necrophilia and incest too.Originally posted by Gedanken:I'm just trying to get a sense of why you would introduce bestiality, necrophilia and incest into a discussion about homosexuality. As far as I can tell, the common thread seems to be the "against nature" argument, but could you clarify?
Homosexuality is definitely not against nature because:
1. the behaviour seems to be quite rampant in the animal kingdom.
2. there is no natural obstruction to deter homosexual acts. Like .. I suck your dick .. you feel shiok right? I poke your backside you feel shiok right? In fact, homosexual acts seem to provide faster, instant gratification compared to heterosexual acts. -
1) Asking for Incest laws to be removed will put your relatives on guard automatically and is akin to begging for a mob attack. There is also no scientific basis for any individual to be predisposed to be sexually attracted to a close relative, and should not be compared to homosexuality. This discussion can be brought up again one day when we have a term for that particular condition.Originally posted by Icemoon:This is my question too.
Even if the government is not inconsistent now, it will be inconsistent later when the lobby for marital rights and same sex marriage starts.
It will also be inconsistent too if some pervert asks for the incest law to be removed, or bestality to be legal.
*shrugs*
2)Same sex marriage......why not? They have that in certain countries. They seem happy. It's their business. If you want to talk about various rights meant for legally married couples then sound off.
3)Beastiality law is meant to protect animals from humans because animals cannot represent themselves, they can't give consent. End of story. -
Of course I don't understand man!Originally posted by crosshairs:You don't really understand the idea of "nature", do you? And where does Darwin start talking about homosexuality? -
How so?Originally posted by Icemoon:I think the arguments made for homosexuality can be used to support the repeal of laws concerning bestiality, necrophilia and incest too. -
1. Huh? What are you talking about? Why on guard? There is still the rape or molest laws to protect the female party isn't it? Huh? What scientific basis for sexual attraction to close relative? Surely there is scientific basis for sexual attraction between different genders isn't it?Originally posted by crosshairs:1) Asking for Incest laws to be removed will put your relatives on guard automatically and is akin to begging for a mob attack. There is also no scientific basis for any individual to be predisposed to be sexually attracted to a close relative, and should not be compared to homosexuality. This discussion can be brought up again one day when we have a term for that particular condition.
2)Same sex marriage......why not? They have that in certain countries. They seem happy. It's their business. If you want to talk about various rights meant for legally married couples then sound off.
3)Beastiality law is meant to protect animals from humans because animals cannot represent themselves, they can't give consent. End of story.
2. No comments.
3. But protecting animals come under the preview of animal laws isn't it? I mean those laws that fine you if you are seen causing harm to animals. If I can prove that no harm is caused to the animal .. why shouldn't beastality be allowed? Maybe the dog goes oww oww like a zhabor. -
Because the arguments are similar. The govt will be inconsistent if they repeal 377A but not those said laws.Originally posted by Gedanken:How so? -
Icemoon, for a proper discussion to take place, you must have a stand. If your stand shifts, there can be no discussion.
-
I already have a stand - no repeal of 377A.Originally posted by crosshairs:Icemoon, for a proper discussion to take place, you must have a stand. If your stand shifts, there can be no discussion.