singapore stance on sexuality: totally confused
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
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.
Wow, he's seriously believing that there's hordes of silent readers waiting eagerly for his next post.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Wow, he's seriously believing that there's hordes of silent readers waiting eagerly for his next post.
No my dear Stevenson. I am only a nobody and insignificant. I would say they would be waiting eagerly to know you and our other fellow citizens views rather, properly and rationally presented that they may be serious food for thought.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
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.
You're clearly blinkered, because you cannot see that the biological roles of fathers and mothers are separate from their roles in society. The former can't change but the latter can. You have been conditioned to believe that the role of the father in a child's life and family life is vital when it is a construction of society. Communities where spouses were common to all have existed.
You constantly avoid saying openly your beliefs that sexual attraction is a choice. It isn't. It has probably never occured to you that some people never developed feelings of attraction to members of the opposite sex. Acting on one's sexual orientation or denying it is a choice. However, homosexuals are not foisting their lifestyle onto you. No one is holding a gun to your head to join them - let them live their lives without worrying about getting attacks from the likes of you. They pass away, heterosexual couples reproduce, most of the kids eventually become biological parents themselves, and mankind goes on. I brought in examples of disabilities and hereditery diseases to show up the hypocrisy of your reasoning. And on the topic of traditions...is your mother, sister or daughter allowed to leave the house? You shouldn't let them, and bring back other past traditions that were maintained for ages for the "good of society", including slavery.
You also have some flawed impression that nature exists for the purpose of exploitation by humankind. The signs are already there for all to see, but mankind has continued to sit on its collective bum and reap as much money as it can. Are you going to wait until it totally irreversible before you decide to act?
So for mankind to evolve and progress, it must stick to discriminatory traditions and exploit the environment to the point of no return, right? See the fallacy? Your posts are so riddled with unquestioned assumptions and outmoded points of view that it's better for you not to respond, since it will only continue to show up your ignorance. There are no silent readers whom I want to address - only the nincompoop who actually opened his trap and actually thinks hordes of people share his views.
-
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.
Did homosexual say they wanna reproduce in the first place
. They just wanna live their lives their way, same as unmarried singles, monks/pope or couples who refuse and cannot give birth. There r also people who r ophans in ophanage and grew up to be useful people too. They do not follow your model of family. Did these people become homosexual or criminals ? Your above passage is clearly invalidBTW, from the above r u suggesting adoption is not even considered as your brand of family ?
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.
And wat do u have on the other hand to claim homosexual is "man made choice" ? From all the responses u provided, u only claim "it is wrong because I think it is wrong." There is no studies, no facts, not statistics, basically nothing to prove the studies to be wrong and tat homosexual cannot be natural (even if it is obvious in animals in natural and homosexual have existed from the start of human history) Wat gives u the right to say tat biological factors have no influence to a person being a homosexual or not ?
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
You're clearly blinkered, because you cannot see that the biological roles of fathers and mothers are separate from their roles in society. The former can't change but the latter can. You have been conditioned to believe that the role of the father in a child's life and family life is vital when it is a construction of society. Communities where spouses were common to all have existed.
You constantly avoid saying openly your beliefs that sexual attraction is a choice. It isn't. It has probably never occured to you that some people never developed feelings of attraction to members of the opposite sex. Acting on one's sexual orientation or denying it is a choice. However, homosexuals are not foisting their lifestyle onto you. No one is holding a gun to your head to join them - let them live their lives without worrying about getting attacks from the likes of you. They pass away, heterosexual couples reproduce, most of the kids eventually become biological parents themselves, and mankind goes on. I brought in examples of disabilities and hereditery diseases to show up the hypocrisy of your reasoning. And on the topic of traditions...is your mother, sister or daughter allowed to leave the house? You shouldn't let them, and bring back other past traditions that were maintained for ages for the "good of society", including slavery.
You also have some flawed impression that nature exists for the purpose of exploitation by humankind. The signs are already there for all to see, but mankind has continued to sit on its collective bum and reap as much money as it can. Are you going to wait until it totally irreversible before you decide to act?
Your posts are so riddled with unquestioned assumptions and outmoded points of view that it's better for you not to respond, since it will only continue to show up your ignorance.
I believe that you can do better than this, for i had seen you in action before. I am clearly disappointed by this latest rant and clouded judgement piece. It would only do more harm for your cause than the support you envision for it is riddled with loopholes and easily disputed.
1. It is true modern women are fully capable of bring up children on their own, BUT only as long as they are still young, able to earn a living or among the top 10-20% of the rich where she needs not worry about money.
But had you considered the social stigma attached to children of gays or lesbians, even on the assumption that they WANT children at all? It would be cruel to do it to them, more so at such times when the world is not fully prepared for same sex marriages, let alone Singapore. Only a few states allowed such union. As the TS had stated, perhaps in time it will change or worse, in time it may not. Are we so cruel as to put children thru such forseeable stigma?
2. There NEVER was an issue about me being approached by gay, of fear of being raped by gays, or my posts written out of a discrimination to gays. I had categorically stated their right to live, but only that they should not promote or others encouraging their un-natural lifestyles. See the flaw you made in your personal tirade against me?
3. Traditions are never set in stone and I fully agree that it should evolve with the times, just as societies grow and evolved. But you must agree that gayism is still not approved by majority of societies, or are not ready for such liberalism. It may come one day, or it may not.
Yet, in your anger against me, you had clouded your judgement and brought up past traditions that had already be removed and accepted by majority of society. See you flaw caused by your emotions against me?
4. Planet Earth had always been plagued by doomsayers and selfish individuals who seeks to keep its resources to themselves and not share it, using lies that there is not enough for all.
Fortunately, with the aid of science, we know now that we are not facing any shortages or doom. We only need to be more responsible with the husbandry of our resources, that's all.
Perhaps one day our resources will run out, but then i sincerly doubt the progression of our scientific advancements cannot improvise and adapt to such changes, just as humanity had adapted for thousands of years. These are facts you cannot deny, for our presence here today is the evidence of our progress.
BUT STILL, for all that i had written here, you had not presented any convincing evidence or reasonable logic to support your stance on gayism, unless your stance is similar to mine, which then there is nothing we should be fighting against one another, and keep your personal distate for me in other battle fields of topic.
I await your response, but am fully prepared that you may choosed to ignore me, which is your right. I had never in any thread told anyone to 'shut up and sit down' even if is a horrid personal attack on my being, for i believe we should practise the freedom of speech beginning with ourself, with rationality to foster better understanding.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
I believe that you can do better than this, for i had seen you in action before. I am clearly disappointed by this latest rant and clouded judgement piece. It would only do more harm for your cause than the support you envision for it is riddled with loopholes and easily disputed.
1. It is true modern women are fully capable of bring up children on their own, BUT only as long as they are still young, able to earn a living or among the top 10-20% of the rich where she needs not worry about money.
But had you considered the social stigma attached to children of gays or lesbians, even on the assumption that they WANT children at all? It would be cruel to do it to them, more so at such times when the world is not fully prepared for same sex marriages, let alone Singapore. Only a few states allowed such union. As the TS had stated, perhaps in time it will change or worse, in time it may not. Are we so cruel as to put children thru such forseeable stigma?
2. There NEVER was an issue about me being approached by gay, of fear of being raped by gays, or my posts written out of a discrimination to gays. I had categorically stated their right to live, but only that they should not promote or others encouraging their un-natural lifestyles. See the flaw you made in your personal tirade against me?
3. Traditions are never set in stone and I fully agree that it should evolve with the times, just as societies grow and evolved. But you must agree that gayism is still not approved by majority of societies, or are not ready for such liberalism. It may come one day, or it may not.
Yet, in your anger against me, you had clouded your judgement and brought up past traditions that had already be removed and accepted by majority of society. See you flaw caused by your emotions against me?
4. Planet Earth had always been plagued by doomsayers and selfish individuals who seeks to keep its resources to themselves and not share it, using lies that there is not enough for all.
Fortunately, with the aid of science, we know now that we are not facing any shortages or doom. We only need to be more responsible with the husbandry of our resources, that's all.
Perhaps one day our resources will run out, but then i sincerly doubt the progression of our scientific advancements cannot improvise and adapt to such changes, just as humanity had adapted for thousands of years. These are facts you cannot deny, for our presence here today is the evidence of our progress.
BUT STILL, for all that i had written here, you had not presented any convincing evidence or reasonable logic to support your stance on gayism, unless your stance is similar to mine, which then there is nothing we should be fighting against one another, and keep your personal distate for me in other battle fields of topic.
I await your response, but am fully prepared that you may choosed to ignore me, which is your right. I had never in any thread told anyone to 'shut up and sit down' even if is a horrid personal attack on my being, for i believe we should practise the freedom of speech beginning with ourself, with rationality to foster better understanding.
Well, have you considered the root cause of the discrimination? I am under no illusion that it will disappear from the playgrounds, given that racism hasn't been stamped out today. We have to make steps in the right direction, however, to give people who are discriminated against less reason to fear. You would also do well to consider the origins of a woman's challenges of raising a child and balancing work, reasons that go beyond just her abilities to cope alone.
Slavery and racial segregation are now condemned by the majority, but advocacy against the tide of common belief was a vital part of their abolishment. The latter is much slower to catch up. See the parallels?
"I had categorically stated their right to live, but only that they should not promote or others encouraging their un-natural lifestyles." So you're saying that they should suffer at the hands of discriminatory policies and practices in silence, because you insist it's unnatural (as opposed to uncommon, or even abnormal). Even if it's a sin, a crime, an abberation, I thought we stopped discriminating against other criminals who have certainly left their mark? Do you see the hypocrisy?
You should also answer these questions: Who are they promoting their lifestyles to? Other GLBTs or straight people? And which aspects of the lifestyle? Are you sure that is all there is to the lifestyle? How is it detrimental? You haven't exhibited much understanding of what it encompasses.
When gays and lesbians ask to be recognised legally, they want the rights to the benefits that spouses have - tax benefits, the right to make decisions, inheritence, etc. How does that affect anyone else? The parties and pride parades - the latter won't happen within Singapore's laws anyway, but you don't have to join in anyway. Beyond offending your sensibilities and getting questions from your children, how does it affect you? The same goes with publications and TV shows. I'd draw the line at holding a gay wedding within a church however, for obvious reasons.
There is enough on earth for everyone's need but not everyone's greed. People are not showing that sense of responsibility either. Politicians levy environmental restrictions on one another without adhering to them themselves, but what is certain is that the current rate of energy consumption and pollution is unsustainable, unless governments act as one - which has never happened in history. They would also rather spend billions to defend their excesses of food, water, etc than share them with less well-off nations and improve their accessibility.
You would be mistaken to think that my argument is a pro-gay argument. It would be even worse to think I advocate I'm only here to address the manifestations of unfounded and irrational fear and ignorance on which many leverage as reasons to suppress homosexual rights.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Well, have you considered the root cause of the discrimination? I am under no illusion that it will disappear from the playgrounds, given that racism hasn't been stamped out today. We have to make steps in the right direction, however, to give people who are discriminated against less reason to fear. You would also do well to consider the origins of a woman's challenges of raising a child and balancing work, reasons that go beyond just her abilities to cope alone.
Slavery and racial segregation are now condemned by the majority, but advocacy against the tide of common belief was a vital part of their abolishment. The latter is much slower to catch up. See the parallels?
"I had categorically stated their right to live, but only that they should not promote or others encouraging their un-natural lifestyles." So you're saying that they should suffer at the hands of discriminatory policies and practices in silence, because you insist it's unnatural (as opposed to uncommon, or even abnormal) - do you see the hypocrisy?
You should also answer these questions: Who are they promoting their lifestyles to? Other GLBTs or straight people? And which aspects of the lifestyle? Are you sure that is all there is to the lifestyle? How is it detrimental? You haven't exhibited much understanding of what it encompasses.
There is enough on earth for everyone's need but not everyone's greed. People are not showing that sense of responsibility either. Politicians levy environmental restrictions on one another without adhering to them themselves, but what is certain is that the current rate of energy consumption and pollution is unsustainable, unless governments act as one - which has never happened in history. They would also rather spend billions to defend their excesses of food, water, etc than share them with less well-off nations and improve their accessibility.
You would be mistaken to think that my argument is a pro-gay argument. It would be even worse to think I advocate I'm only here to address the manifestations of unfounded and irrational fear and ignorance on which many leverage as reasons to suppress homosexual rights.
Now thats more like it.To start, I guess we will have to lay off the environmental and other women issues, and not lump in into our discussion on homosexuality. It will only confuse more.
You claim that there is more to homosexuality than our society, or at least me, knows about. That may be a fair claim, but then homosexuality is not something new. It had been an issue since time immemorial - condemned by tribal cavemen/hunters society or they would not have any human left to progress to farming stage in the evolution of humanity.
They were cherished by civilised Greeks which actually legitimize homosexuality, but was condemned by Rome and other civilisations then. By the time of the Byzantine Empire and religousity of christians and moslems, homosexuals were equally condemn for their lifestyle choice, but practices secretly behind close doors, and often by degenerate men with small young boys.
China and Asian tribal societies largely throughout centuries frown or even ridicule them. Nazi Germany exterminated them in gas chambers even though some of their leaders were the biggest gays.
The root cause for the condemnation of gays - I will not repeat again for I had mentioned several times - the destruction of civilisation even our cavemen ancestors were aware of.
So who are the gays promoting to?
1.Thanks to Josie and Thio, we realized AWARE had a gay agenda in its outreach sexual programmes to our young, and such programmes had been suspended by our education ministry.
2.During the extraordinary meeting held at suntec city, many dubious 'women' were witnessed active and vocal in their condemnation of the new exco.
3. Militant gays sent death threats to the exco members and religious leaders.
All such actions point towards an undeniable growing trend to achieve greater domination in our liberal society with even militancy to achieve their aims, a sign of the times of our evolultion from our more conservative past. Opportunistic times which the gays never had since civilisation began.
The seeds for such growth had been insidiously attempted to be sown into the minds of our young thru the Aware programme. To gain new adherents to their way of life or future sexual partners?
Is there more to gayism other than love and consumation of love thru sex? I will not deny the existance of 'friendship' and 'security' such love brings. But still, you will have to admit to the 'un-naturality' of the sexual aspects. It is a man-made choice that will be detrimental to the continuance of civilisation.
What discrimination have been forced upon gays? Had they been denied the opportunity to live, to work, to love, to have sex behind closed doors? It is most disingenious if not downright dishonourable to draw parallels of slavery with gayism. At no time since time immemorial were gays forced to be gays, but slavery had been forced upon mankind since time began.
I hope I had provided a better insight, even though i know i may had failed to convince you in any manner of your stance. But in all fairness, I can only hope you will realize that they were no 'unfounded and irrational fear and ignorance on which many leverage as reasons to suppress homosexual rights' as you presume that had existed amongst us as a society at any time.
Rather, it is the homosexuals who are attempting to impose and force their values upon us.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Now thats more like it.To start, I guess we will have to lay off the environmental and other women issues, and not lump in into our discussion on homosexuality. It will only confuse more.
You claim that there is more to homosexuality than our society, or at least me, knows about. That may be a fair claim, but then homosexuality is not something new. It had been an issue since time immemorial - condemned by tribal cavemen/hunters society or they would not have any human left to progress to farming stage in the evolution of humanity.
They were cherished by civilised Greeks which actually legitimize homosexuality, but was condemned by Rome and other civilisations then. By the time of the Byzantine Empire and religousity of christians and moslems, homosexuals were equally condemn for their lifestyle choice, but practices secretly behind close doors, and often by degenerate men with small young boys.
China and Asian tribal societies largely throughout centuries frown or even ridicule them. Nazi Germany exterminated them in gas chambers even though some of their leaders were the biggest gays.
The root cause for the condemnation of gays - I will not repeat again for I had mentioned several times - the destruction of civilisation even our cavemen ancestors were aware of.
So who are the gays promoting to?
1.Thanks to Josie and Thio, we realized AWARE had a gay agenda in its outreach sexual programmes to our young, and such programmes had been suspended by our education ministry.
2.During the extraordinary meeting held at suntec city, many dubious 'women' were witnessed active and vocal in their condemnation of the new exco.
3. Militant gays sent death threats to the exco members and religious leaders.
All such actions point towards an undeniable growing trend to achieve greater domination in our liberal society with even militancy to achieve their aims, a sign of the times of our evolultion from our more conservative past. Opportunistic times which the gays never had since civilisation began.
The seeds for such growth had been insidiously attempted to be sown into the minds of our young thru the Aware programme. To gain new adherents to their way of life or future sexual partners?
Is there more to gayism other than love and consumation of love thru sex? I will not deny the existance of 'friendship' and 'security' such love brings. But still, you will have to admit to the 'un-naturality' of the sexual aspects. It is a man-made choice that will be detrimental to the continuance of civilisation.
What discrimination have been forced upon gays? Had they been denied the opportunity to live, to work, to love, to have sex behind closed doors? It is most disingenious if not downright dishonourable to draw parallels of slavery with gayism. At no time since time immemorial were gays forced to be gays, but slavery had been forced upon mankind since time began.
I hope I had provided a better insight, even though i know i may had failed to convince you in any manner of your stance. But in all fairness, I can only hope you will realize that they were no 'unfounded and irrational fear and ignorance on which many leverage as reasons to suppress homosexual rights' as you presume that had existed amongst us as a society at any time.
Rather, it is the homosexuals who are attempting to impose and force their values upon us.
I'd like to see some archeological evidence of the persecution of homosexuals among pre-historic societies. There are also studies that show that paedophilia is independent of homosexuality and that it has nothing to do with the gender of the child victim.
I see the whole Aware hoopla quite differently. If you are interested, I can show you a sociology paper or two about how the state in Singapore creates the illusion that society and the traditional family are under threat from foreign cultural and political influences, which breeds a climate of fear and cautiousness that benefits the former. The media coverage and the government's actions are consistent with that, as are their past actions. Notice too how nothing more has come out of the death threats, and that there has been no elaboration on the course content, of which homosexuality is actually a very brief topic. You must also realise that a significant segment of the attendees opposed the insiduous methods that Thio's team used to seize and establish their power - it was not just about the gay vs Christian agenda.
Civilisation will not be threatened by homosexuality because it remains a minority sexual orientation. GLBTs can win over supporters for gay rights among straight people who believe in eradicating discrimination, but they cannot win over partners from among straight people. That is something which you refuse to accept for some reason or another, continue to dodge and instead choose to see as a contagious psychological condition uncritically. You ought to know that the "threat" from homosexuals is really a construct and part of a bigger picture involving "decadent imported values".
The example of slavery isn't as close as that of racial segregation but the parallels are there when it comes to "traditional beliefs and practices". ("At no time were gays forced to be gays" - refer to my stand on homosexuality as a natural occurence) How about granting gays freedom from the fear of blackmail, persecution and ostracision? Without it, other rights and privileges cannot be fully enjoyed as "normal" people do.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
I'd like to see some archeological evidence of the persecution of homosexuals among pre-historic societies. There are also studies that show that paedophilia is independent of homosexuality and that it has nothing to do with the gender of the child victim.
I see the whole Aware hoopla quite differently. If you are interested, I can show you a sociology paper or two about how the state in Singapore creates the illusion that society and the traditional family are under threat from foreign cultural and political influences, which breeds a climate of fear and cautiousness that benefits the former. The media coverage and the government's actions are consistent with that, as are their past actions. Notice too how nothing more has come out of the death threats, and that there has been no elaboration on the course content, of which homosexuality is actually a very brief topic. You must also realise that a significant segment of the attendees opposed the insiduous methods that Thio's team used to seize and establish their power - it was not just about the gay vs Christian agenda.
Civilisation will not be threatened by homosexuality because it remains a minority sexual orientation. GLBTs can win over supporters for gay rights among straight people who believe in eradicating discrimination, but they cannot win over partners from among straight people. That is something which you refuse to accept for some reason or another, continue to dodge and instead choose to see as a contagious psychological condition uncritically. You ought to know that the "threat" from homosexuals is really a construct and part of a bigger picture involving "decadent imported values".
The example of slavery isn't as close as that of racial segregation but the parallels are there when it comes to "traditional beliefs and practices". ("At no time were gays forced to be gays" - refer to my stand on homosexuality as a natural occurence) How about granting gays freedom from the fear of blackmail, persecution and ostracision? Without it, other rights and privileges cannot be fully enjoyed as "normal" people do.
To put the more relevant points to simplier terms so that more may be able to understand. These are what you believed:-
1. Aware saga is nothing more than a power struggle and nothing to do with gay issues.
2. The Aware programme for schools is only a brief topic and nothing to be feared, even if it teaches that sexual intercourse between same sex persons is ok.
3. Civilisation has nothing to fear from homosexuals because it will always be a minority, even if it grows large one day in our liberal times that the more difficult period of our conservative past.
4. Death threats are not to be feared as long as no one dies or be taken seriously.
5. Homosexual threat are a 'construct' from a bigger picture of 'imported decadent values' - implying the govt's hand to put fear into our family orientated society ( I would personally prefer you remove this unless you have clear and undisputable evidences)
6.Homosexuals are discriminated against
7. Homosexuals should be given the priviledge and freedom from blackmail, persecution and ostracism.( ??? )
These are your views of which i have no intention to change for it is your personal perceptions and belief system.
I only find one issue perplexing and failed to reconcile with - how are homosexuals being discriminated by our society today as alleged by you and how they can be elevated beyond the equality of law that we citizens are all equally entitled to?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
To put the more relevant points to simplier terms so that more may be able to understand. These are what you believed:-
1. Aware saga is nothing more than a power struggle and nothing to do with gay issues.
2. The Aware programme for schools is only a brief topic and nothing to be feared, even if it teaches that sexual intercourse between same sex persons is ok.
3. Civilisation has nothing to fear from homosexuals because it will always be a minority, even if it grows large one day in our liberal times that the more difficult period of our conservative past.
4. Death threats are not to be feared as long as no one dies or be taken seriously.
5. Homosexual threat are a 'construct' from a bigger picture of 'imported decadent values' - implying the govt's hand to put fear into our family orientated society ( I would personally prefer you remove this unless you have clear and undisputable evidences)
6.Homosexuals are discriminated against
7. Homosexuals should be given the priviledge and freedom from blackmail, persecution and ostracism.( ??? )
These are your views of which i have no intention to change for it is your personal perceptions and belief system.
I only find one issue perplexing and failed to reconcile with - how are homosexuals being discriminated by our society today as alleged by you and how they can be elevated beyond the equality of law that we citizens are all equally entitled to?
1. It is not just about gay issues. It's also about the way civil society organisations operate, and the separation of secular and religious affairs.
2. We have no actual access to the course literature and teaching notes, and have only what the state press feed us in a vague manner. How can one be so uncritical?
3. It will be larger than before, when more GLBTs "out" themselves, but no more than the total number of people with such a sexual orientation, and it is a minority.
4. Sheesh...I questioned why there wasn't a follow-up on the police report and investigation.
5. I read the paper, and I believe it backed itself up sufficiently. It was freely used in the course of my undergrad studies in Singapore no less. What is there to fear?
Now those are my views, not as interpreted and twisted by you. Discrimination? Besides the ostracision and ignorance that homosexuals face on a personal level, a lobby group called People Like Us has failed twice to obtain registration as a society. And there was that whole Nation party issue a few years ago as well.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
To put the more relevant points to simplier terms so that more may be able to understand. These are what you believed:-
1. Aware saga is nothing more than a power struggle and nothing to do with gay issues.
2. The Aware programme for schools is only a brief topic and nothing to be feared, even if it teaches that sexual intercourse between same sex persons is ok.
3. Civilisation has nothing to fear from homosexuals because it will always be a minority, even if it grows large one day in our liberal times that the more difficult period of our conservative past.
4. Death threats are not to be feared as long as no one dies or be taken seriously.
5. Homosexual threat are a 'construct' from a bigger picture of 'imported decadent values' - implying the govt's hand to put fear into our family orientated society ( I would personally prefer you remove this unless you have clear and undisputable evidences)
6.Homosexuals are discriminated against
7. Homosexuals should be given the priviledge and freedom from blackmail, persecution and ostracism.( ??? )
These are your views of which i have no intention to change for it is your personal perceptions and belief system.
I only find one issue perplexing and failed to reconcile with - how are homosexuals being discriminated by our society today as alleged by you and how they can be elevated beyond the equality of law that we citizens are all equally entitled to?
I may kick myself for breaking my supposed hiatus from all this whole gay hullaboo, but I read enough of your posts to know that you are one reasoned individual. At least, reasoned enough not to utter crap about gays, unlike certain bigoted others. As such, I believe you are actually worth debating with and talking to, just to see why someone with your reason could take the other side of the argument.
You mention how homosexuals are being discriminated by our society. Why, if that's not a trick question - I can't fathom how you can fail not to answer your own question. Let's start with the simple fact that gays are not allowed to marry?
-
xtreyier... were you sexually abused by your male guardians during your orphanage days or by a full grown gay during those growing years when you were unable to defend yourself ?
To equate gays with pedophiles.
To insist gays are imposing their sexuality on you
To insist that gay right are detrimental to humanity's existence.
You sure sound like a child who was abused.. and thus hate anyone who falls under the same category as your perpetrators.
It's like a girl gets molested by old unkers.. thus insists ALL old unkers are molesters or has the propensity to commit such crimes.
-
lets see some of the words he had said on gays. Let the "silent readers" view if he has no discrimination against gays etc
Please don't besmirch the good name of love. Gay love is not about love. It's all about your contemptible 'sexual preference' and effete practices with your perverted lovers!
ALL and i repeat again - ALL RELIGIONS STAND TOGETHER AND ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, you godless stubborn thickheaded atheist!
If there are any extremism or militancy, it comes from gays and lebians! Who sent death threats to honest men and women? Who raped young boys and destroyed their childhood? Who insidiously attempted to corrupt our young with homosexual lifestyles?!
Why stop at just screwing same sex? After all a bunghole is the same as any - even animals, you perverted atheist! Why limit oneself, after all, as you perverts claimed - free to love and sexual preferences are paramount and important in a secular society?!
So pedophile men who rapes boys with the same sex are not gays?
Gays know they have limited choice in choosing partners of their like lifestyle and preferences amongst society concious adults. Therefore it is only innocent and naive children - boys for gays and girls for lesbanism, they can select and corrupt from.
SPARE THE CHILDREN YOU COWARDLY BASTARDS AND TAKE ME ON INSTEAD!!!
It is only when they attempt to cause friction in our society, testing its boundaries with their promotion of their disgusting lifestyle which our society had already allowed them to do so behind close doors and cause no complaints to be raised, that they must be stopped and reprimanded to respect the law.
The truth hurts and may stink to some, but even worse is the filth from gays and their deluded supporters.
Do know that once the slippery and downhill road to gayism is embarked, it is a trememdous if not impossible task to reverse the course. Many will only get hurt in life.
How sure can you be that sexual freedom promulgated by the loud gay minority lobby that it will not lead to beastility?
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.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
xtreyier... were you sexually abused by your male guardians during your orphanage days or by a full grown gay during those growing years when you were unable to defend yourself ?
To equate gays with pedophiles.
To insist gays are imposing their sexuality on you
To insist that gay right are detrimental to humanity's existence.
You sure sound like a child who was abused.. and thus hate anyone who falls under the same category as your perpetrators.
It's like a girl gets molested by old unkers.. thus insists ALL old unkers are molesters or has the propensity to commit such crimes.
Sorry to disappoint your presumptous and inane theory about me, jojobeach. No, I had not been abused by gays before or at any other time.
I have nothing against humans who turned homosexual, so long as they KEEP TO THEMSELVES AND NOT PROMOTE THEIR LIFESTYLES OR FORCE THEIR VALUES ON US. But like all men of science, I believe that one should challenge the status quo of any vital theory, to source every viewpoint from both sides so as to be able to make an informed decision. More so with decisions that affect our society.
Thank you luce for your confidence in me, but personally, if that is a discrimination, then i believe more time should be given to consider it from all angles and more importantly, how it would affect our society as a whole, not just the few gays who insist on getting married. Once laws are made, revision will be difficult if not impossible, when errors and misjudgement surfaced. Lives may be lost in the meanwhile
Who I am or what I think personally is of no consequence, for alone I am insignificant. But more critical is what our society thinks and operates upon. In order to make a wise choice, it is only fair that they be given enough data to do so, without fear or favour, given coldly, clinically without the baggages of personal distaste for individual debater and with rationally or at least full honest personal beliefs, no matter which side one is on.
It may be too much to hope for, but we have to start somewhere, beginning with you and me, if we indeed do have care and concern for our society, thus the attempt with Kuali to see her side of view and hopefully more rationalities from both sides.
Will our society one day encourage homosexuality the way we encourage heterosexual unions, but like the perceptive TS had spoken, it may happen or it may not. But regardless its whichever eventuality, such decisions must be made upon a wise and majority based platform that only a society can make, of which i, an individual, am subject to respect just as everyone else. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Atheist, you only do a disservice to yourself and your cause when you launch personal attacks on the insignificant me and the honesty of my personal views, instead of making the effort to show the good points of your pro-gay and anti-God stance.But then i guess it is your freedom of choice. Some use it, some only waste it.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Sorry to disappoint your presumptous and inane theory about me, jojobeach. No, I had not been abused by gays before or at any other time.
I have nothing against humans who turned homosexual, so long as they KEEP TO THEMSELVES AND NOT PROMOTE THEIR LIFESTYLES OR FORCE THEIR VALUES ON US. But like all men of science, I believe that one should challenge the status quo of any vital theory, to source every viewpoint from both sides so as to be able to make an informed decision. More so with decisions that affect our society.
Thank you luce for your confidence in me, but personally, if that is a discrimination, then i believe more time should be given to consider it from all angles and more importantly, how it would affect our society as a whole, not just the few gays who insist on getting married. Once laws are made, revision will be difficult if not impossible, when errors and misjudgement surfaced. Lives may be lost in the meanwhile
Who I am or what I think personally is of no consequence, for alone I am insignificant. But more critical is what our society thinks and operates upon. In order to make a wise choice, it is only fair that they be given enough data to do so, without fear or favour, given coldly, clinically without the baggages of personal distaste for individual debater and with rationally or at least full honest personal beliefs, no matter which side one is on.
It may be too much to hope for, but we have to start somewhere, beginning with you and me, if we indeed do have care and concern for our society, thus the attempt with Kuali to see her side of view and hopefully more rationalities from both sides.
Will our society one day encourage homosexuality the way we encourage heterosexual unions, but like the perceptive TS had spoken, it may happen or it may not. But regardless its whichever eventuality, such decisions must be made upon a wise and majority based platform that only a society can make, of which i, an individual, am subject to respect just as everyone else.Xtreyier,
What do you mean by "KEEP TO THEMSELVES AND NO PROMOTE THEIR LIFESTYLES OR FORCE THEIR VALUES ON US."
How are they to keep to themselves ? Like pretend they are heterosexual when they are out in the streets? Pretend they are something else because they are too offensive to your eyes ?
How do they promote their lifestyles ? Like have a gay publication that talks about how to be a gay ?
How do they force their values on us ? Like tell you that you should become one too ?
Ofcors not.
The problem with you Xtreyier.. is that you have no gay friends. I do.. several.. but does that makes me gay too ? Absolutely not. And none of them can change me into one. None of them tell me to be one either. Now how is that possible for them to FORCE their values onto me ?
They are all but human beings. Just different in their sexual orientation.
-
just wanna add in my 2 cents...
gay frens are cool, have one of it as my room mate once...
had so much fun.....
the only thing i cant stand them is seeing them kiss....
still kinda freak me out every time.....
-
Originally posted by EarlNeo:
just wanna add in my 2 cents...
gay frens are cool, have one of it as my room mate once...
had so much fun.....
the only thing i cant stand them is seeing them kiss....
still kinda freak me out every time.....
aye.. so does that cause you to become queer ?
-
Originally posted by EarlNeo:
just wanna add in my 2 cents...
gay frens are cool, have one of it as my room mate once...
had so much fun.....
the only thing i cant stand them is seeing them kiss....
still kinda freak me out every time.....
That's the point isn't it?Homosexuals cannot turn a heterosexual, a heterosexual simply can't find his/her own gender sexually attractive
-
Originally posted by EarlNeo:
just wanna add in my 2 cents...
gay frens are cool, have one of it as my room mate once...
had so much fun.....
the only thing i cant stand them is seeing them kiss....
still kinda freak me out every time.....
How about freaking them out by getting a girlfriend and kissing her in front of them. -
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Xtreyier,
What do you mean by "KEEP TO THEMSELVES AND NO PROMOTE THEIR LIFESTYLES OR FORCE THEIR VALUES ON US."
How are they to keep to themselves ? Like pretend they are heterosexual when they are out in the streets? Pretend they are something else because they are too offensive to your eyes ?
How do they promote their lifestyles ? Like have a gay publication that talks about how to be a gay ?
How do they force their values on us ? Like tell you that you should become one too ?
Ofcors not.
The problem with you Xtreyier.. is that you have no gay friends. I do.. several.. but does that makes me gay too ? Absolutely not. And none of them can change me into one. None of them tell me to be one either. Now how is that possible for them to FORCE their values onto me ?
They are all but human beings. Just different in their sexual orientation.
Thank you for your valid views which may help more to comprehend.
1. As mentioned already to boring lengths, I am insignificant and so is what is offensive to my eyes. It is what is offensive to society that is critical. And you must readily admit Singapore is still a conservative society and are not ready to accept homosexuality.
The day may come that it will change, or it may not, but till then, to perform homosexual acts and actions in public is definately forcing our society - you, me, our families and friends to accept such values we may not be ready or prepared accept - without a more comprehensive and rational perception given by the pro-gay groups instead of mere and militant death threats.
2. How should they promote their lifestyle then? I trust and have faith in human ingenuity. If they could somehow prove without force that they are of no immediate threat to society and civilisation, then perceptions may change.
It may be an uphill battle, but if that is what it takes in their love and belief for such lifestyle, then it is a effort worth engaging in to them.
However, on the flip side, perhaps homosexuality is only a pyschological disorder and can be rectified thru counselling and help we as a society can offer?
3. We adults are already set in our ways thus it will be difficult to impose their homosexual values to us. It is OUR YOUNG that the penetrations ( pardon the pun) will be made, for our young are still naive and innocent.
How much time can we afford to overlook the affairs of our young while we are busy daily working to ensure we bring home the bacon? It's an excuse, but still the fact exists.
Are we to allow our young be subjected to such family destructive lifestyle? Are we responsible when the child spends at least 8 hrs in academic subjects and projects a day away from home, taught by flawed human teachers just as we are equally flawed humans? Or question the friends that they spent a significant portion of time they have to provide counter- counselling?
I know not the answer to my own points raised, but then it is my hope that whatever society has decided upon, it should be respected by all from both sides to maintain the status quo. Life already is as difficult as it is without the added threats from rising homosexual impositions and militancy. It must and need not be the way to go for a lifestyle to be included.
With this, I would like to make an exit, for I had express my views far more than I wish and know that it bores many. But I hope more may come out and share their honest views from both sides, without the ridicule heaped upon messengers/debaters.
-
Originally posted by EarlNeo:
just wanna add in my 2 cents...
gay frens are cool, have one of it as my room mate once...
had so much fun.....
the only thing i cant stand them is seeing them kiss....
still kinda freak me out every time.....
did they kiss in front of you? everytime? a peck on the cheek or wet tongue wrangling?
my friends don't kiss that in front of me, and I don't kiss my girlfriend or wife in front of others, may be I am very conservative. But in my bed room, in my car, when nobody around, its different...... -
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Atheist, you only do a disservice to yourself and your cause when you launch personal attacks on the insignificant me and the honesty of my personal views, instead of making the effort to show the good points of your pro-gay and anti-God stance.But then i guess it is your freedom of choice. Some use it, some only waste it.
some people here are more anti God than atheist. Many atheists do not accept homosexual lifestyle.
and there are many gays, in the west, also wants to embrace religion, their right to believe in God.
Like you say, its their freedom of choice,.....
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
did they kiss in front of you? everytime? a peck on the cheek or wet tongue wrangling?
my friends don't kiss that in front of me, and I don't kiss my girlfriend or wife in front of others, may be I am very conservative. But in my bed room, in my car, when nobody around, its different......
`yawn'...who gives a fug what wrinkled skin does....next time, if you want to pass a comment. keep it short,sweet and to the point.
your 2nd para is an excuse for you to write something that you fantasize...... issit?
-
Originally posted by redDUST:
`yawn'...who gives a fug what wrinkled skin does....next time, if you want to pass a comment. keep it short,sweet and to the point.
your 2nd para is an excuse for you to write something that you fantasize...... issit?
