singapore stance on sexuality: totally confused
-
Having sex with your right hand consider natural or not har ? Very confused.
I don't consider that sex.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
That right.
It considered unnatural or immoral.
They should have their rights.
But declare homo as natural should be off limits.
Taboo.
Like incest.
Taboo.
You can't go and declare incest is correct and natural.
It has existed through the milleniums, despite the fact that there's no way for it to reproduce itself into future generation.Whether you like it or not, they continue to exist. Whether you like it or not, they will continue to exist. Since they exist, they have to be part of a natural process whether we like it or not.
-
The cultures of ethnic groups did not think tis is unnatural because your understanding of natural is wrong.Someone is right to point out the difference between "natural" and "normal".
Depends on your point of view.
Are you looking at the issue from the biological view or cultural view?
For example polygamy.
From biology view men take many wifes is considered advantage as it helps to spread the seeds.
But from cultural view some consider it immoral, while others it is normal.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
I don't consider that sex.
It fulfills no natural imperative and has no role to play in the passing down of genetic materials.Thus, it is unnatural no?
Impotent couples are genetically useless to the human race, should we consider them unnatural?
-
I think u r mixing up incest and homosexual. We r talking abnout homosexual and bringing in beatiality and incest is out of point. If u wanna bring extreme examples, then talking about religion is about religious fanatics, violent cults and terrorism and therefore should be banned as well.
-
Since they exist, they have to be part of a natural process whether we like it or not.
Not sure about that argument.
Human are born with many defects, like albino, six fingers etc.
Those are not considered natural from biological point of view.
-
It fulfills no natural imperative and has no role to play in the passing down of genetic materials.
Thus, it is unnatural no?But it's not sex wah.
-
Albino, six fingers etc r natural because they exist in natural. Computer is not natural but man made because it is not found in natural. U know wat is natural now ?
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Not sure about that argument.
Human are born with many defects, like albino, six fingers etc.
Those are not considered natural from biological point of view.
we came up with the idea that such 'defects' are not 'normal', that they are defects. whether something is 'normal' or 'not-normal' is 'made up' by humans...as is the idea of what is 'natural' or not... -
U know wat is natural now ?
Okay.
But which culture considers male and male having sex to be normal or natural?
The ancient greeks perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
But it's not sex wah.
Then what is sex leh ?
Penetrating the penis into a grapefruit is sex or not har ? Very confused.
-
Homosexual is not normal in the sense tat it is the minority in a society
Same as people who has 6 fingers and having albino etc. They r also not normal.
So wat is your point ?
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Okay.
But which culture considers male and male having sex to be normal or natural?
The native americans . But spaniard conquerors finds tat disgusting.. so they set their dogs on em.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Okay.
But which culture considers male and male having sex to be normal or natural?
Previous cultures discourages women from studying and pursuing their own careers.Some do not even allow us to not worship gods. We have to worship the day we are born.
We adjusted then, i don't see why we can't adjust now
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Homosexual is not normal in the sense tat it is the minority in a society
Same as people who has 6 fingers and having albino etc. They r also not normal.
So wat is your point ?
His point is simply.. for a person to be normal..that man must look exactly like himself lah.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
The native americans . But spaniard conquerors finds tat disgusting.. so they set their dogs on em.
Eh got meh, never heard this one before. -
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Eh got meh, never heard this one before.got lah...
-
We adjusted then, i don't see why we can't adjust now
I am more conservative on this issue.
Homosexuality is unnatural, not natural.
If someone declares it to be "normal" or "natural" or teach that in schools or to children, it must be disapproved, not approved.
Someone come and tell my kids that gay is natural, normal, I will go and criticise that person.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
I am more conservative on this issue.
Homosexuality is unnatural, not natural.
If someone declares it to be "normal" or "natural" or teach that in schools or to children, it must be disapproved, not approved.
Someone come and tell my kids that gay is natural, normal, I will go and criticise that person.
Ya think ye can stop your child from becomin one at the push of a Stop button?
If it happen.. watcha gonna do ? Make im a eunuch ?
And ya think them homos.. they got no parents.?. tsk.. ofcors they do...
-
If it happen.. watcha gonna do ? Make im a eunuch ?
If it happens that is his business.
But it doesn't make it any more natural or normal in my eyes.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
If it happens that is his business.
But it doesn't make it any more natural or normal in my eyes.
Well if you can let your own child mind his own business...
why couldn't you let someone else's child mind their own business ?
-
why couldn't you let someone else's child mind their own business ?
I'm not stopping any one.
In fact I approve of civil unions between gay couples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
Not sure whether majority of singaporeans approve of it.
-
If u look from a genetic perspective, forcing homosexual to be "straight" is "endangering" the future generations because their genes pass down and more people become homosexual. The best way is to let them be and their gene dies with them. Forcing people to be straight is really defying god's will if god wanted people to simply reproduce and reproduce
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
What had been the bedrock of stability for our civlisation of 6000 years to grow? If you are unaware, it had been the family, the union of a male and female with their progeny to tap, cultivate and enhance the meaning of gift of life that had been bestowed upon us on this beautiful planet, either by a higher being of the religious minded or products of the big bang theory suscribed by evolutionists.
It had lead to the evolution of our species, the masters of Earth, and more critically the continuity of mankind, despite its flaws but had come with joys you and I can experience today.
Therefore, what is the defination of natural? It can only be that which had kept mankind and civilisation alive, although higher intellectuals will still argue with more definations. To simple people like you and me, it can only mean traditions that had kept us forward in life instead of regression.
Homosexuality may occurs with a minority of people, but like the swine virus, it will spread if not contained, espacially when they become more vocal and demanding in our liberal age. Are we to just stand back and let them grow destroy the family and thus civilisation itself?
Be a homosexual by all means, they too are humans, with a right to live, but they must not be encouraged nor supported, no matter how liberal we may become, or we will be the ones staring at our eventual demise as a civilisation.
If you're not even queer in the first place, you won't "catch" homosexuality like some disease, get it? Other models of the family have existed (and did not die natural deaths), and you would be mistaken to think that the model which involves monogamous heterosexual parents is that old.
Going by your token, physical disabilities and genetic mutations, although naturally-occuring, are not normal and have a more realistic chance of killing of the human species. Therefore, the deaf, blind and dyslexic should be denied the right to marry too. Heck, why not extend it to Huntington's patients and even people predisposed to cancer. Singapore already forbids people with Down's Syndrome from having children, so what's stopping us?
No, wait. I'm sorry, why should the human race even continue to multiply when it is already using up food and energy resources at an unsustainable rate and causing irreversible damage to the natural environment? It has outlasted its usefulness, if it ever was useful in the first place, because it promoted its own advancement at the expense of nature.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
If you're not even queer in the first place, you won't "catch" homosexuality like some disease, get it? Other models of the family have existed (and did not die natural deaths), and you would be mistaken to think that the model which involves monogamous heterosexual parents is that old.
Going by your token, physical disabilities and genetic mutations, although naturally-occuring, are not normal and have a more realistic chance of killing of the human species. Therefore, the deaf, blind and dyslexic should be denied the right to marry too. Heck, why not extend it to Huntington's patients and even people predisposed to cancer. Singapore already forbids people with Down's Syndrome from having children, so what's stopping us?
No, wait. I'm sorry, why should the human race even continue to multiply when it is already using up food and energy resources at an unsustainable rate and causing irreversible damage to the natural environment? It has outlasted its usefulness, if it ever was useful in the first place, because it promoted its own advancement at the expense of nature.
There are no other models of family, in the past or present. No matter how one tries, there is no way to reproduce another human other than the natural way through reproduction cycles, with the love, care and concern that a mother and a father can provide, even with adoption or kibbutz centres.
Current attempts may change it, such as invitro fertilisation and even cloning, but still at its infancy and subjected to much societal ethical debate.
Physical disabilities are as natural as the sun in the sky. It occurs in every generation throughout the course of human history. There is nothing unnatural about human defects, and it will be our advancements in science that we can bring about solutions to rectify them, so that the blind may see, the deaf may hear, etc.
It is only lifestyle choices, which are man-made that conflicts with our evolution, traditions and progress that is unnatural.
How much are we aware that defects are hereditary? Geneticism is still in its infancy and for someone to qoute that genes influenced our behaviour is unscientific. At best they are still theoratical and not fully subscribed proofs of scientific evidence.
Had we used up ALL our resources? Had the fields gone fallow, the water sources dried up, mankind squeezing shoulder to shoulder?
What are resources if it is not meant to be used for us mankind? Is the tree more important than the life of a child?
kuali, i had expected better from you, but what you had given do not even deserve a response from me. I am a nobody and do not need to be impressed or be convinced by you or anyone else.
It is the silent readers that you must convince if you want them to consider your points intelligently or take to your side, but what you had offered bears little recognition of such, and would only insult the more rationally discerning.