State media versus militant religionism: which is the lesser evil?

June 1, 2009 by admin
Filed under Headlines

Comments

181 Comments on "State media versus militant religionism: which is the lesser evil?"

mon on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 8:44 am

well said.

steven tan on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 9:38 am

The Scapegoat

A look at the Bible reveals the origins of the term “scapegoat.” In accordance with religious rites, a goat designated as the scapegoat, was symbolically laden with the burden of the sins.

Leviticus 16:11
“And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull as the sin offering which is for himself.”

Leviticus 16: 14.
“He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.”

Leviticus 16: 15
“Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins.”

The ritual described above is barbaric. It was an expression by people with the barbaric and scapegoat mentality.

John 3: 16
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Influenced by the above ritual, the crucifixion of Jesus was given a scapegoat interpretation! Our belief is the reflection of our mentality. The scapegoat interpretation attracts many people who have the scapegoat mentality of always finding a scapegoat for their wrongdoings and sins.
The clause, “whoever believes in Him”, is a condition.
Love is unconditional. If there is a condition, it is not love. It is an exchange, trading and business transaction. It is an insult to the teaching of Jesus Christ by turning love into a trade. Now, you know why some pastors are millionaires.

Did God give His only begotten Son?

Mark 16:19
“So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.”

God did not give His only begotten Son. Jesus went back and “sat down at the right hand of God.”
If something is given and taken back, it is not giving.
If I have a son who can come back and sit at my right hand after he dies, I will happily send him to fight in the wars and die a hundred times.

True sacrifice does not mean sacrificing a scapegoat or getting someone to die for you on the cross. This is the reason why Protestants and Catholics are having religious conflict. They cannot unite if they pray to Satan in the name of God. If they want harmony and peace, they must be guided by universal values because God guides them through the universal values.

Universal values are accepted by people of different religions because they are divine.

Religious values are not accepted by people of different religions because they are not divine.

The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) was a series of wars in central Europe stemmed from conflict between Protestants and Catholics.Four million people were killed and another 20 million were made homeless. Each group claimed it was fighting for God.

The lesson learnt from this war is we should separate religion from politics. Our daily life should be guided by universal values like care and compassion. Love for power should be replaced by power of love to care for our community and country.

steven tan on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 9:40 am

Christian Group Encroaching Secular Schools

http://www.bb.org.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=31818

The Boys’ Brigade is a Christian organisation. They should not be allowed in Non-Christian schools. This is another proof that a Christian group is encroaching
into secular space. The Ministry of Education should not allow it to happen. This shows the Ministry is biased in favour of Christianity allowing them to promote Christian values and proselytizing in schools!

Alwin Loi on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 9:59 am

a good piece of writing, eugene. it shows that when time and occasion arises, Wayang Party is never hesitant to even defend its arch enemy, the Straits Times!

Singman08 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 10:32 am

“….we should separate religion from politics. Our daily life should be guided by universal values like care and compassion. Love for power should be replaced by power of love to care for our community and country.” – Well said Steven.

Religious groups should and must concentrate on teaching the Way to God and on doing charity/community service. If their actions are seen and known to be pure and right, their followings will increase; there is no need to resort to dirty political manoeuvres and demonising other religions.

Solo Bear on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 10:51 am

What needs to be discussed is Gay Militarism. Don’t you think this needs just as much attention?

I have put up an article on that in my blog.

Don’t wish to put up link because many gays think I am promoting my site. As if I need to do that to boost my numbers. roll eyes.

infp on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 11:22 am

delicious! a clash between similar psychological leanings. both the religious fundamentalists and the master behind the propaganda machine believe in the philosophy of ‘one true way’,the unquestioning obedience to authority, and anything at all cost to preserve that.

interpretation systems overload!!!!

in the meantime, religious issues are now free to be publicly discoursed. triumph !!!!

What the Fish on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 11:28 am

Prophet Page 73 said that she had friends in places.

Are we seeing some of them coming up to address her setback?

That Mr Sin is an advocate right? so he must have realised what he did so why did he have to apologise?

flyingdagger on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 11:32 am

Solo Bear,
Then why you even bother mentioning that you have put up an article in your blog, and with your name linked to your site?

not promoting your site? yeah right!!

Anonymous on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:01 pm

I disagree with the conclusion. It’s not up to the PAP to “monitor” or to “legislate” their way to control militant religionism using undemocratic means like the state apparatus like the police or the ISA.

The best defense against such rubbish is a free press and the freedom of speech. Untruths can be debunked. Criticism can be answered. In the US, for every one columnist supporting the religious right, there will be another debunking their arguments and fallacies. They act as good check and balances on each other. For in their extremes, neither is palatable.

Sadly, the reason why Mr Han has to defend himself is because there is none of this dynamism in a state controlled press. There is only one authoritative voice which everyone has to march to, so they cannot be seen to be biased.

Surely, considering that Wayang Party wants to position itself as an alternative to the main stream media, and consistently argues against the state trampling on individual’s freedom, that it would be odd for this blog to support PAP’s further intrusion into our everyday lives?

fearandignorance on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:17 pm

Solo Bear,
u are making mountain out of a anthole of a PRIVATE gay pride party meant for ONLY employees of the U.S. embassy in Iraq.

Insensitivity of the employee to the culture of host country: Yes
Spreading homosexuality to Iraq citizens: NO

No More Credible Opposition! on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:18 pm

So, does this now officially makes WayangParty a pro-gay and anit-christian media? Is not militant LGBT equally dangerous to our mainstream society? Why are you ignoring the fact that they had covertly infiltrated our school with their wayward teachings? Is it a crime for the majority to prefer sticking to the “one Man, One Woman” family nucleus??

It’s a pity that alternative voices that I hope can give PAP a fight for their political relevance had turned itself into a full-fletched gay media…sad day! Can’t trust even the opposition now!

Begging For Peace and Stability on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:18 pm

Good article. Yes, I generally agree with Eugene’s view in this article.

Despite the ST being pro-PAP and one-sided most of the time, for this Aware saga, the ST has done a good and unbiased job. It should not be faulted in this instance whatsoever by whosoever.

Therefore, to be fair, we must not join the religious extremists in their vicious and militant crusades to annihilate all those who are against them or not for them (for they have considered that those who are not for them are also against them).

The religious extremists have shown their craftiness and determination again in their vicious and militant crusades. This time they have transmitted their voices to be heard openly in the Pa-Lee-Men in order to strike at the ST, by using an anonymous email without verifying its writer nor its content first before being put forth by one of its disguised modern “crusaders”.

Is it not a coincidence that a SIN has to be represented by another SIN in the SIN Pa-Lee-Men? Is it also a coincidence that a militant theology has to be represented by a Thiologian in the Pa-Lee-Men? And take note that both are “legally” qualified and “Leegally” accepted/selected. I find this really intriguing and bewildering.

I believe that the SIN will go down in history forever as the SIN in all generations to come. This SIN may not be wiped out even with the blood of millions of scapegoats, scapesheep, scapedonkeys, scapedogs or scapechicken.

I have a strong feeling that they have already launched the religious war a few years back and this is their phase 3 of their grand strategic invasion plan. We have to be prepared for it. The sooner the better.

Don’t ever be caught with the pants down again like in the Aware AGM held on 28 Mar 2009!

The ramifications will be too huge to be imaginable. Many things are at stake, especially the stability of our country, our livelihoods and our children and their children.

If these religious extremists have their ways, the future of all our children will be in great jeopardy. We have to nip it at the bud now, before this disease spreads and invades into every strata of our society.

One place to watch very closely at are the schools – they are probably using “infiltrated teachers” to influence the young and innocent school kids and students in order to lure them into their sanctuaries and indoctrinate them with unerasable extremists’ mentality and then make use of these kids and students as a “Focus of the Family” to “Focus on the Family”.

The secular government and the secular political leaders have to act now, before it is late! They could have already infiltrated into the PAP’s ranks and in the civil service, especially the PA, MOE, MFA and MID.

So, please act now, we the powerless people are begging.

I hate hypocrites on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:20 pm

I am sorry but I disagree with the conclusion that the Aware saga is between militant religionism and homosexuality.

As a parent of 3 teenagers, I see it as a case of conservative values and homosexuality.

I also see the ex-new-Exco are inexperienced people who tried to do something to right the situation but done in a terribly wrong way. Its silly of them to try to take over the group the way they did.

At the same time, I see the current-old-Exco are somehow manipulated into promoting the homosexuality agenda which they in the first place should not be there.

Lastly, if there is true militant religionism – something like what happens in Iraq, I will definitely be against it more than the StraitsTimes. However, for now, I think the StraitsTimes is worse that what has happened with the ex-new-Exco.

Just my thoughts…

黑狗當道 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:35 pm

The late David Marshall once described the Straits Times journalists as “running dogs and prostitutes of the PAP” and it still holds true today.

難道馬紹爾所說的話沒有份量嗎？只因爲他已失勢？

馬不知臉長！那一只馬會說自己的臉長？

有膽量說自己好，佩服佩服～～～～臉皮夠厚！

Solo Bear on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:38 pm

flyingdagger,

There are 2 ways to say what I want to say. The first way is to do it on other people’s sites. When I did that, gays got angry that I go round dirtying the sites of others.

The second way is to do it on my site, then get others to see what I wrote on my site. When I did that, gays say I try to promote my site.

You see, the promotion of my site is secondary. What is primary is what I say – be it on the site of others or my own site.

I mentioned that I put it on my blog because I want to highlight what I wrote, not because I want to promote my site.

Of course, I can return to my original way, that is dirtying the site of others.

Whatever the case, it can be seen that gays are trying to silence opposing views, the way ST does.

That is my main point here.

wholuvsg on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:43 pm

Article on yahoo…. “Khaw says communal spread of H1N1 likely to happen soon”……….

why are they so fast to cover their backside, but always try to siam from anything that jeopardizes their minister title, and be the first to claim credit for any form of success even if it’s not exactly their efforts? ( eg: mas selamat escape )……….this “cover backside” and “lack of transparency / accountability” culture got to go…..if not, you can have 1000 opposition party members, and things will remain unchanged….

sicktothebones on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:44 pm

the same group is astroturfing against anyone, anybody against their zealot campaign to impose their views and values on the rest of us – NMP Siew, MOE CSE, ST – who or what is next on their radar? PAP? If this is not subversive united front tactics used a lot by the communists I wonder what is?
Scary – the intensity and viciousness of their attacks against anything in their way. PAPs is next if this is not nipped in the bud with frim measures. mark my words.

JohnnyKid on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 1:03 pm

Solo bear became famous after being the first person to be banned from posting comments on amiable Mr Wang’s blog. Now the bear is raving mad, and goes around spamming forums, blogs with his hate speech, and accusing everyone of having a gay agenda.

Funny and pathetic at the same time.

Solo Bear on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 2:22 pm

Johnnykid,

Gays worship pro-gays like Kum Hong and Mr Wang too much. As if these are gods in their eyes.

Sure reinforces my point that Singapore gays are spineless people who depend on others to do the dirty work for them.

Anonymous on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 2:54 pm

“No More Credible Opposition! on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 12:18 pm

So, does this now officially makes WayangParty a pro-gay and anti-christian media? ”

I agree with No More Credible Opposition.
WayangParty is turning into such a site, from the why they are moving, REGARDLESS of how Eugene tried to defend himself. The general perception is AS SUCH. Period.

Begging For LGBT To Repent on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 2:56 pm

Begging For Peace and Stability,

The impression that LGBTs like you give me is – you can daringly go about doing all the covert and devious acts and then, pretend to be helpless and powerless victims and begging for help! Worst of all, bashing christianity and using it as a distraction to turn people away from your dirty and unscrupulous tactics. That highlights the kind of deceitful personalities and characters of LGBT, doesn’t it??

So, by your definition, “focus on the family” is an evil thing for our school children that should be stopped? I am trying hard to understand your thinking, but then, I do also realized that LGBT do not think straight, so I can only empathize with you!

In line with your thoughts, I would therefore also say that any covert attempts in turning our kids into LGBT must be stopped at all cost…and mark my words, it is not going to stop with AWARE, we are keeping a close watch much as you are going about with your covert activities…WE ARE WATCHING!!!

reader on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 3:19 pm

Dear Eugene,

I disagree with your statement that you prefer a state media to militant religionism as the lesser of two evils.

This statement is similar to what some leaders say – That they prefer an oppressive political environment compared to total anarchy and riots.

The REAL fact is, both of these are terrible and there is no reason why BOTH of them cannot be absent all together. Why is there a need to compare them in the same statement?

Your article runs the risk of misleading people into thinking that a state media can be a necessary evil at times.

streetsmart73 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 3:24 pm

hi there

1. well done, wp, a pretty balanced article.
2. however, that will the day where shitty times could stand on its two feet and play neutral. in fact, i had already “discontinued” my subscription. there is no much in its webpages too, blah blah blah!
3. btw, for those who claimed to have the uppermost “conservative values and culture, wake up and smell the coffee and try surfing the net, and think outside the box.
4. we are living in the present and not in a lost world.
5. sex is everything whether you like it or not.
6. it has nothing to do with some religions, beliefs or aware.
7. everyone just needs it, period!
8. thank you.

infp on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 3:28 pm

Begging for peace and stability

wrote

“The secular government and the secular political leaders have to act now, before it is late! They could have already infiltrated into the PAP’s ranks and in the civil service, especially the PA, MOE, MFA and MID.”

when it comes to the pap, worry not. rest assured ah yew the gangster will have it covered. dare to play religion in my party! in my beloved singapore!!! don’t pray pray…

admin on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 3:43 pm

Hi all,

This article is not meant to defend or promote the necessity of having a state controlled media.

All along, we have been advocating for the liberalization of the media in Singapore. We need to have more players instead of one monolithic SPH to allow a diversity of views, including dissenting ones to be expressed and heard.

Eugene felt compelled to defend The Straits Times in this instance against the astroturfers who are intruding upon our shared secular space in the guise of “family and mainstream values”.

However, that will not stop from continuing to expose the fallacies, lies and spins of the mainstream media.

Hope that clarifies.

JohnnyKid on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 4:10 pm

Ban solo bear = pro-gay

Your logic is supreme.

House Divided on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 4:26 pm

The curious thing is that the ST get whacked and the whackers get away with it. Wonder if Chee Soon Juan will get any ST editor to response at all other than just getting sued. Maybe the whackers are PAP and thus the response. More like a family feud then. Let the house be divided and it shall fall.

Master of Punnets on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 4:38 pm

@Begging for LGBT to Repent

How low. Ad hominem punning, and bad punning at that.

I regret to inform you that the tactics and techniques you so eagerly ascribe to the ‘homosexual agenda’ are, in point of fact, the methods of militant theists.

Re: Focus on the Family – it sounds nice. It’s focusing on the family, eh? Perhaps you should check out Christian Identity, or the World Church of the Creator. Very innocuous names as well.

And for the last time, it is simply impossible to ‘turn your children gay.’

mr suan on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 4:55 pm

I agree that what we need is an alternative press, or a new model to newsreporting in Singapore.

We can possibly have the same news reported from 2 differing viewpoints as is done is most other presses so as to address different perspectives more comprehensively. With that, there would be less of the drawing of battle lines in online forums that I’m starting to see everywhere.

Remember 21st July! We live in a idyllic nation and have coexisted for so long with each other. The last thing we need is to have extremist groups gunning each other down by claiming extremism from the other camp.

Eterna2 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 5:30 pm

I fails to grasp the logics of these pple…

Why are LGBT in SG considered militant? I don’t see them out in the street rioting. I don’t see them forcibly taking over an organization. I don’t see them mass emailing everyone slandering another group, or inciting fear and hatred. And neither do I see LGBT trolling in forums.

Who are the ones that keep slandering the LGBT in public? Who are the ones that thought the ends justify the means? Who are the ones mass emailing everyone, spreading mis-information and inciting homophobia among the moderates? Who are the ones that are always trolling in the forums, ST, REACH, whatever.

And who are the ones that started labeling humanist, secularist, etc as LGBT lovers? And yet who are the one that cried injustice when they are labeled as fundies?

For those who wish to engage in mud slinging, don’t cry when the mud comes flying back at you.

Pangyuan on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 5:30 pm

The editor of ST summed up the gist of the AWARE saga by acknowledging its(ST) failure by saying “we should have pressed the old guard more on Aware’s school sexuality programme and the appropriateness of some of its content.”
As a mainstream media, ST had also failed to highlight the importance of mainstream values of the silent majority in its eagerness to link religion with anti-gay activities. In the process, ST lost its objectivity in its reporting!
Where’s its independence and professionalism?

Eterna2 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 5:34 pm

The problem with too many presses are reporters/editors will tend to try sell stories instead of reporting. (aka reporting what they think the readers want to know)

But then, there are no perfect system.

Personally, 1 press is enuff. We just need to remove the big brother stick and carrot. More presses != better news.

Seen this before on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 6:38 pm

Astroturfing is a very, very serious threat to freedom of speech, freedom of anonymity and freedom of the press. Regardless of what everyone here thinks about how the dice should have fallen on the AWARE saga, the use of astroturfing as a reprisal tool is cowardly, dishonest and immoral. It creates false statistics, making a moderate population seem extremist, twisting the grounds dishonestly to an extremist minority’s advantage. Astroturfers are everyone’s enemy.

Astroturfing to overturn a prior decision is the worst nightmare for any side of the argument. It destroys any chance of closure on the matter and will only breed much deeper resentment to what is already a hurtful war of ideas and ideals. A stable society is strongly dependent on closure, regardless of who won. It is seditious and has no place in civil society.

Regardless of what side you are on, it is vital that Astroturfers must be wiped out. Just think, if the Red shirt team had won instead of the White shirt team in the EOGM, and astroturfing sought to pressure the government otherwise, would astroturfing be any less subversive?

Culprits can be traced via IP addresses, proxy breakers and other marker tracers to their source(s). Once hunted and found, they should be penalized to the full extent of the law.

Alan Wong on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 8:07 pm

Bigot bear, please crawl back to your dark caves to read your ancient unholy book. There is no really place here for such distorted minds that you have.

Anonymous on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 9:08 pm

Dear “#Solo Bear on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 2:22 pm ”

You epitomizes the EVIL in
http://www.evilbible.com/

Perhaps this was the reason why LUCIFER, the once right-hand angel of GOD, decided to rebel against him as LUCIFER has seen the EVIL in him. Hence GOD demonises LUCIFER into an EVIL SATAN.

SATAN only tempts human but GOD actually KILLED human!

Anyone with IQ higher than Solo Bear can discern the real evil one!

Eterna2 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 9:15 pm

Pangyuan <<

May I ask, how do u highlight the mainstream values with respect to the AWARE incident?

Interview the average joe in the street on their opinions on homosexuality?

Or write that homosexuality is not normal and should not be deemed as acceptable? (Isn’t this already making a stand? And should the msm publicly demonize any grp? If it is okay to demonise LGBT, why not for the ultra-conservatives?)

Or write about the scientifically unsound researches by NARTH et al?

The mainstream value is that heterosexual family unit is the normal. Plain and simple. Does heterosexual family unit necessarily an exclusion of homosexual acceptance?

If your brother is a gay. Will you say he is a freak and that he is wrong? And for the world to condemn him thus? He cannot even tell people he is a normal person with a different sexual orientation. Because it is WRONG to say homosexual is normal or neutral.

How many of you actually thought from the other side of the argument?

Roger on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 9:36 pm

I think we should do something about Solo Bear. From May 29 to 31st he was terrorising another popular website with his many nuisance comments. He did it on purpose to divert, confuse and destroy the article/thread. His astroturfing methods caused the thread owner to close all the comments and possibly the thread itself.

He is a despicable person belonging to “you know what” ideological school. Now on June 1st, he is here because the other site has been shut. Don’t fall for his trap. Remember he will also use other nicks and my advice is don’t engage him in any rebuttal. As he will use the divert, confuse and destroy methods so that the actual message will not get through.

Some “religious” people like him are just pure evil. As it has been proven in history.

seventhtree on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 11:38 pm

what we could do is actually try to find out solo bear’s identity perhaps you take away his veil of anonymity, he would then learn to stfu. i wonder what would his employer would do when they find out he’s such a bigot

Mainstreamer on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 11:39 pm

WayangParty, why not have the heading as “Militant Religionism versus Militant LGBT: Which Is The Lesser Evil?”

The state media represents the government, as what it is alwaye being alleged here, so, the fact that 2 ministers had made their official stand known, with homosexuals being asked to live in their very own corner without disturbing and affecting the mainstream lifestyle, they already have no issues whatsoever as far as this AWARE saga is concerned.

The issues are with the LGBT militants as witnessed in AWARE EGM, and they are the one who had unscrupulously hijacked a civil organization for their own covert attempts in infiltrating their alternative lifestyle to our school kids, and if they are not uncover earlier and contain, they will one day even infiltrate the government (which might be the case already, at least as far as ST is concerned, they have a bunch of freaky LGBT reporters and journalists who even celebrated together with the old guards and the gays supporters in the EGM).

I’m also aware that Substation is also infiltrated by LGBT militants, as in their Reel Revolution 2008 event last year, they had even arranged for Alex Au to speak on same sex marriage, which was quite out of topic for an event being organized purportedly for aspiring young film makers in Singapore. I believed the government will dealt with it appropriately, now that they know the mainstream is highly disgusted with the militant LGBT’s evil and unscrupulous way to promote homosexuality at all cost!

WayangParty, with its pro-gay and anti-christian agenda, had and will continued to conveniently used militant religionism as an excuse and smoke screen for the LGBT’s failed plans in infiltrating our schools, but the majority known that this is not the case, it is more about the “Mainstream versus Militant LGBTs”, and in this regards, the mainstream had already won their war with the government support. BUT as always, knowing the kind of freaky minds of LGBTs, they will not stop trying, but next time, WE ARE READY!!

Twin Bear on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 11:46 pm

Ha Ha Ha Ha, solobear, you must have been very successful in adding salt to the wounds of these gays and lesbians, so much so that they are now attacking you instead of militant religionism…CONGRATULATIONS, and keep up the good posts that reveals the ugly truth and hidden agenda of gays and lesbians. I enjoy reading your posts and you have my support!!

House Divided on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 12:19 am

All religions are evil. No exceptions. Only God is good.

House Divided on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 12:22 am

Gay militanism. Ya. So the “Christians” must be militant now and immediately too, to counter this non existent militanism. The devil is the devil because he is good at twisting words and accusing the righteous. We have seen the devil now. So lets be very afraid for the army of the devil is rising from the depths of hell.

DingDong on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 12:28 am

Oh please, WP (Eugene) defends ST in AWARE Saga, is like Dr Chee saying he defends LKY! It just does not jive!! Eugene, you are getting out of your mind? Give me a break, the truth is you supported LGBT, so you are willing to compromise your critism of MSM so long as the MSM reporting is in line with your view?

laughable bear on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 1:18 am

solo bear : have u been solo and lonely for too long a time that you have total lost touch of the real world but peeping out from you cave hole? lol, dude u’re funny at best, and frankly, u’re jus another lonely soul trying to get some limelight. U got some, but realize that u’re standing in ya own feces when it lights on u

*cheers*

Ad Naeseum on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 1:19 am

The Christian fundies, in this post and others of similar issue pretend they never saw what has already been posted and continue to repeat their Christian vile about the gays hiding under vague terms like family values, social norms, gay lifestyle, Singapore being a conservative society etc……..refusing to face up to FACTS and well documented and objective studies on homosexuality.

I repost from:

A case of the blind leading the blind: Flip-flopper Iswaran’s gross ineptitude in full display over the Aware CSE’s saga

May 13, 2009 by admin

wheerein the following was posted:

Anonymous on Sat, 16th May 2009 2:47 am

To: Anon on Thu, 14th May 2009 7:13 pm

U claimed to hv read “current scientific journals on the homosexual issue”.

U mind listing down the scientific journals?

I think that Alexis had already stated that under current research methodology, it is impossible to prove the genetic factor as the determinant for homosexuality but the studies of animals have shown that environmental factor can be precluded……..that is it is innate to those animals who are homo.

In the publication “Just the facts About Sexual Orientation and Youths A Primer for Principals, educators and School personnel” which is endorsed by the following:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrations
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association
School Social Work Association of America

it is stated:

“The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or the emergence of same sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has NO support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organization.”

It is also stated in the same pub. that reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy, which is stated to be favoured by Focus on Family – a fundie Christian organisation which Josie Lau got DBS to support and which Alan Chin, her husband had subscribed to the idea – is positively HARMFUL.

So homosexuality is NOT abnormal.

The American Psychological Association, together with others had filed under Lawrence v. Texas that:

“Decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream mental health organizations in this country to the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality.”

As to your eg of the TGN1412 drug, I think you are not being intellectually honest.

Homosexuality which have been observed to take place amongst animal species is used to rebut homophobes arguments that the environment or non-biological determinants of such sexual orientations………..not about differences in reaction to drugs.
…………….

Also check this from the same post:

Alexis on Thu, 14th May 2009 1:15 am

Anonymous on Wed, 13th May 2009 6:09 pm said:

“I take issue with this point. It has not been conclusively shown that homosexuality is innate and genetically determined before birth. For those who insist that it have been shown conclusively, please state the journal and article title. From what I know, the “gay” gene has been hypothesized to exist and experiments have sort of supported it, but due to reproducibility problem and other factors, the identity is still not known.”

It is as conclusive as can be under the limitations of research methodology currently & funding.

Why don’t Christian fundies like you show up ANY peer reviewed studies/research which shows that gays are NOT born?

If they are not born, ie genetically homosexual inclined, then could the Christian fundies explain why or how is it that some males are sexually attracted to males only and similarly for females, ie lesbians.

Detail studies on animals have DISPROVED Christian fundies at NARTH assertions that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors or like extreme right wing Christian fundies like Thio Su-Mien’s claim that females become lesbians as a result of father abuse. (Dick Cheney’s daughter who was raised in an extreme right wing Christian fundie family is a lesbian. How does this fit into Thio Su-mien’s hallucination of father abuse turning a girl to become lesbian?)

Name me ONE internationally expert who completely rules out genetic factor as a cause for homosexuality?

Various national bodies in various advanced countries have come out to declare that homosexuality is a born with it condition which is why such countries – US, UK, NZ, Australia etc, Japan, S Korea, China and soon India has DECRIMINALISED homosexuality and more and more states in the US even allow for same sex marriage and NZ is following suit.

In any case could the Christian fundies point out what EXACTLY is bad about homosexuality?

Speak up or shut up forever.

Singapore is Secular on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 1:56 am

Eugene Yeo – Good Job!

I tot this article would not be discussed in this way … now that everybody is already done with ST, AWARE & Thio family…

But its a good article that makes U think why should we not begin to see what’s happening around us. Can we continued to be naive?

Extremism is not welcome in SG. We have seen how countries where it come from fared badly to the core.

The last time I would want to see is that it turns out hitting hard at people who support secularism … the right for all faiths & non believers; an open field to explore …

I can’t imagine having one faith to tell all others what to do … even if we of other faiths/non faiths disagrees … can we decide for ourselves?

I like your link to the NY Times on the scattered peace in South Korea … its a lingering problem as Koreans are known to be a fervor bunch … especially when they become Christians …

A worrisome trend if they decide to believe less in humanist values than instead morals from a storybook … & paint the picture that if we don’t believe in it … we are wrong … we will burn in hell … Good Grief … what century are they living in now?

Morris on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 2:08 am

Some “religious” people like him are just pure evil. As it has been proven in history.
______________________________________________________________

Solo bear,

Your hatred towards the LGBT population is clear for all to see in the many inflammatory comments you’ve made in the different forums, but I would think you’re being very short-sighted and very self-defeating. Let me tell you why.

I assume that you are, like myself, a heterosexual man who will eventually have children of our own.

One thing I can be very sure of, is that I will find gays and lesbians amongst my decendents – if not amongst my children, then amongst my grandchildren, or my great-grandchildren.

This is inevitable, and it will have nothing to do with what we teach to our school children, because as it has been repeated many, many times, sexual orientation is not “teachable”.

You either are, or you are not. Period.

Preaching “homosexuality is bad” and inciting hatred against our LGBT citizens will not produce a generation of heterosexuals.

More likely, it will result in a generation of many self-hating and guilt-ridden gay and lesbian youths who may grow up to become psychologically-damaged adults unable to come to terms with an inalienable part of their self-identity.

Is this what you hope for in our next generation?

One assumption you’ve made in some of your comments is that the so called “pro-gay” people are largely the gays themselves.

That is where you are clearly mistaken. There are many non-gay individuals who feel strongly that everyone should be treated equally, where Siew Kum Hong is just one prominent example amongst many others who feel the same way.

We are not pro-gay, but pro-equality, pro-justice, and anti-discrimination, and our attitudes extend to all socially disadvantaged human beings in the same situations.

When we ask for a more LGBT-friendly social environment, we are not “promoting homosexuality” as some religious militants will accuse us of.

If anything, it reflects our awareness of the fact that none of us is spared from having a LGBT person within our immediate families and amongst our friends and relatives. They are amongst us, even though we may not know them for who they really are.

That LGBT person may have the face of our parent, our child, our uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, teacher …

What you do not seem to realize yet, solo bear, is that your LGBT decendents will have to swallow the bitter fruits of your misguided hatred, and they will not thank you for that.

Let’s build a better and safer environment for all our children to grow up in, be they straight or gay.

Robox on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 6:10 am

To Eterna2 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 5:30 pm:

Re: “Why are LGBT in SG considered militant?”

militant (def.): “After all the ways and means we have used to shut you up and keep you down, you still DARE to talk back to us. You’re INCORRIGIBLE! YOU’RE A MILITANT!”

People like Solo Bear believe that when his camp fires the first salvo, the Good Gays will just roll over and play dead: “Democracy for myself but not for others.”

Outsider on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 8:18 am

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Eterna2 on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 5:30 pm

>I fails to grasp the logics of these pple…
>
Why are LGBT in SG considered militant? I don’t see them out in the street rioting. I don’t see them forcibly taking over an organization. I don’t see them mass emailing everyone slandering another group, or inciting fear and hatred. And neither do I see LGBT trolling in forums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Violence is the crudest form of ‘militancy’. If you see for yourself the aggressiveness during the recent Aware EGM, you will observe that the same very spirit of ‘militancy’ exists, especially among the old Aware supporters.

On the other hand, the Thio/Josie group was a model of calm, civility and restrain. I suppose they have no choice, since they were not on ‘home ground’, as it were. The most ‘militant’ act I could see at the scene was when a Josie official ordered a defiant participant to ’stop speaking and sit down’. But this is understandable in the context of the defiance and also the need to deal with urgent matters at hand.

But aggressiveness is good, especially when it comes to dealing with the ‘rogue’ homosexuals who are not naturally gay (false gays) but who desire to adopt the ‘exotic’ pleasure practices as a deviant but in vogue living style. It is really this group of rogues which the naturel gays need protection from, since they ‘give them a bad name’, so to speak, and cloud the gay issue in the eyes of the world at large.

Eterna2 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 10:51 am

One observation I have with those so-called mainstreamers or conservatives (in reality is closer to ultra-conservatives) is that there are only 2 factions in any conflict (3 if you include the apathetic or neutrals).

In reality, it is seldom so. I am often casted as a LGBT or LGBT support just because I am in opposition to the views of the ultra-conservatives. But that fact is not an assertion that I support the LGBTs.

In reality, I hadn’t any LGBT friends (that I know of), nor did I ever attended (or paid attention to their activities). But I stood out in opposition presently because I felt the line has been crossed by the ultra-conservatives in their public demonising of the LGBTs through blatant misinformation, fear mongering tactics and wild public accusations.

Nowhere have I seen signs of LGBT militancy. Yet instead I saw numerous signs of trolling by the intolerants. And as a final note, one do not argue via morality. One argues through logics, and there is very good reason for it. Morality is non-universal, while logic is.

Eterna2 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 10:59 am

DingDong <<

See what I mean by fallacious logics and narrow worldview? This is a very dangerous thought process. That everything are absolutes – black and white.

That a good person can never commit bad, and a bad person can never commit good. It is fallacious and dangerous.

A disdain for msm does not necessarily preclude agreement or approval. Similar my dislike for a person, does not necessarily meant he is a bad person, or that I cannot compliment him.

Eterna2 on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 11:40 am

Outsider <<

You have committed a fallacious argument in assuming old guard supporters to be LGBT supporters.

This is wrong and non-factual.

I do not approve of the rowdy behavior by the old guard supporters, as I feel, everyone should be given the right of reply, regardless how distasteful or how much you disagree – everyone is entitled to speak their peace as long as it is not something seditious or personal attack (etc).

However, regardless of the mob behavior, it is wrong to claim that as LGBT militancy. The main grudge people have is the unethical manner AWARE was taken over, and the perceived imposing of religious beliefs in a secular organization.

I repeat again. It is wrong to label pro-old guard as LGBT supporters. It is the same as labeling a worker riot as evidence of Chinese supremist militancy because there are a lot of chinese in the mob. And there are no factual information how many LGBT are actually present.

It is a blatant lie to claim all who support the old guards are LGBT or pro-LGBT – the same ploy used by Hilter, simplifying and demonising the opponents to gather support.

And note very closely, majority of us are against the idea of discrimination, or public policy based on religious beliefs. This is neither an attack on any religion, or person.

Seldom did we engage on ad hominem arguments (support the argument by attacking the perceived character of a person instead of answering the argument), which seemed to be the standard arsenal of the ultra-conservatives (I am not saying you, I know u are not one of them) – never realizing they are committing a fallacy.

Anornimus on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 1:57 pm

Outsider on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 8:18 am

“On the other hand, the Thio/Josie group was a model of calm, civility and restrain.”"

BUT their power grab was NOT legitimate, not bona fide, engage in stealth, false propaganda, deceit & LIES.

Thio Su Mien coup was achieved through the power base of the COOS & related Churches who turned up in huge numbers at the EGM, whereas the old AWARE guard + LGBT are at best a disparate group. So Thio could still carry out their conspiracy with “restrain”

Those guilty of the above, including Thio Su Mien, her daughter, COOS senior pastor Derek Hong, Josie Lau, Alan Chin, etc have lost the right to speak about values and morals.

Doobie on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 3:50 pm

Outsider plays> On the other hand, the Thio/Josie group was a model of calm, civility and restrain.

Please. Thio grabbed the mike and jumped the queue to speak her piece, and who was it on the Josie group that said ‘Shut up and Sit Down’? Restrain my foot.

I hate hypocrites on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 6:37 pm

I really hate hypocrites.

First I think the take over of Aware by the ex-new-exco was wrong and stupid.

However what the current-old-exco did is also wrong. They try to introduce a liberal acceptance of homosexual lifestyle in a sneaky underhanded way – and got away for two years.

But as a parent, if I were to measure the severity of the misdeed of what the ex-new-exco vs the current-old-exco did, I would rate the current-old-exco to be worse.

I consider the Aware CSE worse because if they wanted to promote a liberal homosexual acceptance slant to the program, they should have declared it in the first place. What they did was dispicable because there is a hidden agenda.

Now even with the admonishment by the government and being told that Aware needs to regain the trust of parents, the Aware president still defend her position and isn’t remorseful.

Those pro-gay supporters who find my views offensive may want to reflect on the government’s position before attacking what I have said. Please take issue with the government first.

I find all the pro-gay comments here hypocritical because they refuse to engage the government and challenge them for removing the Aware’s CSE. Yet these same individuals post comments about how all conservative parents are some religious fanatics or militants.

supporter of honest people on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 7:43 pm

The 700 plus supporters of ex-new-exco are the true hypocrites. All dressed in same coloured T-shirt, are same race and probably from same religion. Dare to come by same batch of coaches to the EGM to vote but don’t dare to stay till the end to debate with the pro current-old-exco supporters.

Their action of leaving the EGM straight after voting clearly contradict their united turnout to support and vote for the ex-new-exco. Shame on all these hypocrites.

To “I hate hypocrites”,

I hope you had turned up, voted and stayed behind till the end of the EGM for the ex-new-exco. Otherwise, cut all these craps and go stand together with the hypocrites mentioned above.

Vanakam on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 9:50 pm

supporter of honest people,

You are such an hypocrite, on one hand, you have the audacity to claim that you support honest people, but on the other, you start telling lies about the 700+ people who were there to support Josie Lau and team (and claiming all dressed in same coloured T-shirt, are same race and probably from same religion).

For your info, I was there, and I am a tamil, so was my the other 4 friends who were there as well. By the way too, we were not christians and certainly not from the same church as Josie and team, but we firmly support mainstream family beliefs, and wants to play our part in stopping evil LGBTs like you from inflitrating our mainstream families.

I supposed you were one of those unruly, deplorable gays and lesbians whom we saw shouting and yelling like lunatics and monsters??? What a shameless group!

benkwok on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 11:00 pm

“infp on Mon, 1st Jun 2009 3:28 pm

when it comes to the pap, worry not. rest assured ah yew the gangster will have it covered. dare to play religion in my party! in my beloved singapore!!! don’t pray pray…”

the problem is ah yew isnt going to live forever. when he’s gone, all the xtian fundies would come out of the woodwork.

Anon on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 12:28 am

I hate hypocrites on Tue, 2nd Jun 2009 6:37 pm

“I consider the Aware CSE worse because if they wanted to promote a liberal homosexual acceptance slant to the program, they should have declared it in the first place. What they did was dispicable because there is a hidden agenda.”

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Christian fundie like u still refuse to accept that the American Psychological Association together with other US national bodies had stated that homosexuality is NORMAL as commented above in their publication meant for US schools entitled “Just the facts About Sexual Orientation and Youths A Primer for Principals, educators and School personnel”.

So what “hidden agenda” you talking about?

**************

“Now even with the admonishment by the government and being told that Aware needs to regain the trust of parents, the Aware president still defend her position and isn’t remorseful.”

xxxxxxxxxx

MOE is just being a coward caving in to the fundie Christians lah………..just like gahmen kissing Thio Su Mien’s backside in refusing to repeal S377A when ALL the 1st world countries have done so.

supporter of honest people on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 12:49 am

To Vanakam,

Did you take a picture of yourself and your 4 friends while you were there? Sorry, many people didn’t see you all there. If not, are you all in any of the youtube videos? Please point it out to me.

Did you also slip out quietly with the 700+ red T-shirt hypocrites after the voting? Or were you all hiding quietly among the supporters of the old guards? Why didn’t you and your friends stand behind TSM while she was giving her infamous speech? Where were you and your 4 friends when Josie and her team were fending for themselves on the stage? Go stand together with the 700+ hypocrites if you cannot answer my questions.

anon on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 1:29 am

The ultra-conservatives were stupid to make a drastic arbitrary move without much planning.

Aware was sneaky and deceitful to talk about homosexuality acceptance behind our backs. Aware’s becoming ultra-liberal.

Two ultra’s clash is sure thing.

The rest of us won’t bother until someone tries to force something radical down our throats. Aware is more guilty of forcing something radical down the mainstream’s throat. What it did is against the mainstream values.

infp on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 2:47 am

benkwok

wrote

“the problem is ah yew isnt going to live forever. when he’s gone, all the xtian fundies would come out of the woodwork.”

siao liao. at a time when we need him, he going to mati. like that how?

infp on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 3:10 am

vanakam

wrote

“but we firmly support mainstream family beliefs, and wants to play our part in stopping evil LGBTs like you from inflitrating our mainstream families.”

if it’s not mainstream, would you still support it?

infp on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 4:18 am

dingdong

wrote

“Oh please, WP (Eugene) defends ST in AWARE Saga, is like Dr Chee saying he defends LKY! It just does not jive!! Eugene, you are getting out of your mind? Give me a break, the truth is you supported LGBT, so you are willing to compromise your critism of MSM so long as the MSM reporting is in line with your view?”

in the aware saga, some ppl who support ‘old’ exco don’t actually care much about feminism and lgbt but because they hardcore don’t like fundies. so can we say that these ppl ACTUALLY support ‘old exco?

tan on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 6:38 am

Fundamentalist christains or no different from extremist Muslims like the
Talebans el al. They are just as dangerous to well being of society despite
being cloaked in pious declaration of saving society . They are unscruplous
in using any means to get their way thinking the end justify the means.
Their debating arguments is quotes from the bible not logic or reason
without realizing the other party do not subscribe to a word in the bible.
The use quotes in the bible as the final word without realizing others
don’t subscribe to their mindless adoption of every word written in
the bible. They r the cancer of society, intellectual terrorists , build mental
prisons, undermind free thought and are no less if not more dangerous
than physical terrorists.

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 8:37 am

to “supporter of honest people”

Perhaps you rushed through my comments and missed the fact that I do not support the ex-new-exco. In fact, I find silly in what they did. No, I was not there nor do I want to be.

Its childish that you try to rake up a different issue from what I am saying about how the current-old-exco and the pro-gay supporters – of which I assume you are one. If not, do correct me.

The point in contention is why these pro-gay people choose to attack conservative parents when they rejoice that the government’s decision to reprimand Aware for their stealthy CSE. Yet these same incredibly vocal and militant pro-gay supporters are almost painfully silent in attacking the government. This is what is hypocritical.

I guess its true (as what I have read elsewhere), that these militant pro-gays then to focus on confusion since they cannot convince. Simplest way is to change subjects and attack another perhaps irrelevant area.

Solo Bear on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 9:11 am

Hello my gay adversaries,

Please note that you are the bigoted ones. I have said countless of times that gays should be allowed their personal space. Is that not tolerance?

Now what you are asking is to have MORE than just your rights. You are asking me to give up my right as a parent, to teach what I want to teach my children.

Oh? You mean I teach my children to discriminate you? Where?

Now, if you want school children to be taught about anti-discrimination, then let’s talk about anti-discrimination as a stand alone subject. Let’s introduce lessons that teach anti-discrimination. Yes, teach them not to discriminate people with disabilities, people of different religions/races etc.

Why must we give homo topic special privileges? What is so darn special about homo, that when it comes to discrimination, it must be given special attention above all other kinds of discrimination?

So gays, before you call me a bigot, please look into the mirror. For I allow you to have your space, while you want to have mine as well.

Who is the real bigot?

Wayang, I hope you allow this post through, because you have allowed gays to pour their filth in the first place.

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 10:11 am

To “Anon”

This is another strange approach by pro-gay supporters. You ask where is the “hidden agenda” and you quote some reference that is not based in Singapore.

We have some states in US allowing gay marriages. Do we have it here? Should we? The discussion must focus on the now. Clearly we do not.

The parameters allowed for the CSE is to focus on family as a basic structure. Even the government states that the content is wrong. Isn’t having it there while not in the offical notes – isn’t this stealthy and suggests hidden agenda? Why not declare it in the actual training documents? Oh, sure ignore this essential fact and quote something else. You are very good at that. This would again reinforce the fact of your confusion strategy.

You go on to say

“MOE is just being a coward caving in to the fundie Christians lah”

Why not write to the government and demand that they reinstate the CSE? Where are you on this mission?

By the way, I share my conservative parent views and in no way have I mentioned or justified any area via the my religious views. Just your deranged mind trying to confuse people that its got to do with religion.

While I support homosexual’s right to their lifestyle within the informal constraints (as stated by DPM), its such a shame that pro-gay supporter isn’t satisfied with it and wants to push the boundaries. The bigger shame is that they do it again in a stealthy manner instead of declaring outright. Make a statement as a group that you want all kids to be made known about homosexual lifestyle and that parents are not entitled to what they want for their kids. Let’s see howmuch support you will get.

The biggest shame of all is that to achieve the stealthy goals, they are willing to tarnish all that stand in their way as fundamentalist, fanatics, lunatics, etc. Please do not be a hypocrite and attack with the same venom, the government as they are the ones who has been the strongest critic of pro-gay activities of late. Don’t be a pussy (pun intended).

Robox on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 10:32 am

Dear Bigot Bear,

Re: “I have said countless of times that gays should be allowed their personal space. Is that not tolerance?”

Gays should not feel satisfied being relegated to a space where we have our privacy free from state harassment, and believe that is the only space that we are entiltled to. Why the heck should we be? This may come as a shock to you but we are FULL human beings. We are now talking about equality in the public space.

I don’t care for tolerance, yours or anybody else’s. I want to know if you RESPECT our equal right to the public space.

Re: “You are asking me to give up my right as a parent, to teach what I want to teach my children.”

So you believe that you have a right to teach your goddamn children lies about us, do you? And, like the Christian Taliban, lay the groudwork for gays to keep encountering homophobia in every sphere. (And you are of course, NOT discriminating against gays when you do that according to your warped logic.)

Go ahead and and teach your own children. Did you ever hear us say that you don’t have that right? However, I hope that you only teach your children the whole truth and nothing but the truth because if you don’t, then when it is your childrens’ turn to take up space in public, they will definitely be pommelled into a pulp by others who can see through their stupidity and bigotry.

And they have daddy to thank for that!

Re: “What is so darn special about homo, that when it comes to discrimination, it must be given special attention above all other kinds of discrimination?”

Who asked for that, fuckhead? We are asking to include anti-discrimination instruction against gays ALONGSIDE all other discrimination. The reason that anti-homophobia has been given this much attention is PRECISELY because it has NEVER gotten any attention in the past and people thought – any many like the Christian Taliban still do, obviously – that it is CORRECT and even MORAL to discriminate against gays.

Do you understand the difference or are you really as severely impaired as you come across?

Re: “For I allow you to have your space, while you want to have mine as well.”

YOU get this right: my private space is my private space just as your private space is yours; the public space is EQUALLY MINE as it is yours.

Comprendez, BODOH!

infp on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 11:05 am

solo bear

wrote

“Now, if you want school children to be taught about anti-discrimination, then let’s talk about anti-discrimination as a stand alone subject. Let’s introduce lessons that teach anti-discrimination. Yes, teach them not to discriminate people with disabilities, people of different religions/races etc.”

good point. how would you teach your children not to discriminate against gays?

Vanakam on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 11:27 am

Supporter of honest people…

You just bring hypocrisy to another higher level that clearly befit gays and lesbians like you. In fact, why be so hypocritical in using “Supporter Of Honest People” when you are clearly here as a gay supporting your own group of freaky gays and lesbians????

###Did you take a picture of yourself and your 4 friends while you were there? Sorry, many people didn’t see you all there. If not, are you all in any of the youtube videos? Please point it out to me.

What had whether our pictures being taken or not got to do with what we are talking about here…you have a problem with your “brain” or you don’t use it to think at all? Yes, the videos are everywhere, did you see them all? And yes, the videos clearly showed how freaky you bunch of LGBTs were, and how unruly and uncivilized you were…need we argue more, it is all within the videos, everyone saw it!!!!

###Did you also slip out quietly with the 700+ red T-shirt hypocrites after the voting? Or were you all hiding quietly among the supporters of the old guards? Why didn’t you and your friends stand behind TSM while she was giving her infamous speech? Where were you and your 4 friends when Josie and her team were fending for themselves on the stage? Go stand together with the 700+ hypocrites if you cannot answer my questions.

Unlike you freaky creatures, we don’t have to stand behind Josie and team to make our statements, and we don’t have to resort to uncivilized and deplorable behaviors like shouting and screaming to disrupt any speech by Josie or team. Your uncivilized actions in the EGM only shows us how mentality unstable LGBTs are!!!!

Yes, I saw a bunch of freaky insane people standing behind Dana Lam and her team!!

supporter of honest people on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 11:32 am

Why is a neutral stand on homosexuality in CSE cannot be tolerated and even seen as condoning and promoting homosexuality? Neutral means not supporting either of two opposing sides and being impartial. What is your definition of ‘neutral’?

Are you blind to not see that there are so many opposing voices in the Internet and in this blog on the MOE’s ‘weak knee’ reaction to suspend Aware’s CSE program without meeting any of the petitioners?

Didn’t MM, SM and PM say publicly that homosexuals are born the way they are and they are entitled to live their own lives and should not be discriminated against? Why don’t homophobic people like yourself go and challenge MM, SM and PM? Are you not a real hypocrite yourself?

What do you mean I’m childish? Wasn’t the action of the 700+ red shirt supporters of ex-new-exco considered hypocritical? Pls tell me why if you think they are not. You don’t even know who are the real hypocrites in the Aware saga and you dare call yourself a champion against hypocrites.

FYI, I’m a straight person who feels angry with dishonest and hypocritical people like Derek Hong, TSM and Josie gang. What they did have created a gulf between Christians and non-Christians, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Derek Hong had openly said he wanted S’pore to toe within the line drawn by his own God and explicitly called on his congregation to influence the outcome of events within a secular organization, and then unashamedly denied he had done so and he was neutral on the matter. TSM was happily stirring poo behind the scene and was only force to come out in the open when her email instigating the takeover was exposed. Josie could not even remembered if she had asked her employer permission before she stood for Aware’s presidency, and feigned ignorance to not know the other Exco members from her church before the takeover. Since you called yourself a hater of hyprocrites, shouldn’t you hate these people? Unless, of course, you are also a hypocrite yourself. Pls go & look into the mirror and convince yourself whether you have been a hyprocrite or not by giving all these slanted comments.

supporter of honest people on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 12:05 pm

To Vanakam,

Need I say more? You have just proven yourself to be another hypocrite.

During the EGM, the opportunity was given to you and your 4 friends to show your strong support for TSM and Josie gang. You didn’t take and missed that opportunity and now I’m trying to help you to exonerate yourself and your friends by asking you to prove that you were all there making your stand and doing your part to stop a so-called infiltration by LGBT. Why feel so sore now that you saw so many people with different backgrounds who went to the EGM and stand behind the old guard all the way?

You can’t even prove anything to help convince readers that you were there supporting Josie gang, and now you come telling readers that you don’t have to stand behind Josie gang to make your statements. Where should you stand then? I suggest you can stand in the toilet bowl and flush yourself off.

Anon(3rd Jun 2009 12:28 am) on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 12:37 pm

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 10:11 am

“This is another strange approach by pro-gay supporters. You ask where is the “hidden agenda” and you quote some reference that is not based in Singapore.

We have some states in US allowing gay marriages. Do we have it here? Should we? The discussion must focus on the now. Clearly we do not. ”

I’m “pro-gay” in the SAME sense as AWARE whether under fundie Christians like Josie Lau are “pro-women” esp those being discriminated upon base on their gender as a woman.

The US eg is BASED on years and years of INDEPENDENT and OBJECTIVE studies in the US.

What study has been done in S’pore?

What are fundie Christians like you based your arguments/complaints on? None except YOUR/fundies interpretation of the Bible/Leviticus OT written thousands of yrs ago.

U said:

“The parameters allowed for the CSE is to focus on family as a basic structure. ”

Maybe your interpretation lah…….. MOE already said the sex education ORIGINALLY conducted by MOE was a FAILURE cos of increasing teen pregnancies and spread of sexual diseases……who the hell said “parameters……is to focus on family as basic structure”?

Fundies like u can’t even get the issues right in the first place.

Why need I write to gahmen when the facts and the eg speak for themselves that the Christian fundies ARE in the gahmen (Lui Tuck Yew etc).

Tell leh……why singapore still got S377A when other 1st world countries already repealed?

Anon(3rd Jun 2009 12:28 am) on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 12:46 pm

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 10:11 am

MOE gives parents the right not to allow their school children to participate/attend any sex ed classes.

the CSE by AWARE is (mis)used by Thio Su Mien and her fundie Christians to CENSOR ANY discussion of homosexuality…………Thio had mentioned of AWARE screening of the film which she claimed portrayed lesbianism about 2 years ago, as evidence that AWARE was “promoting” homosexuality.

u can claim whatever u want about whether or not u r a fundie, but your views betray the real u.

Solo Bear on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 1:46 pm

Robox,

Before you call someone a bigot, you should stop being one yourself.

>>Gays should not feel satisfied being relegated to a space where we have our privacy free from state harassment, and believe that is the only space that we are entiltled to.
>>

Fact is the NO ONE has relegated gays. Gays have this inferiority complex in them. You can have sex in private, the way heteros do. Heteros get arrested if they have sex in public, the way homos do. There is no discrimination or relegation – except in the minds of inferiority-complexed gays.

>>So you believe that you have a right to teach your goddamn children lies about us, do you?
>>

What lies are you talking about? You, on the other hand have no goddamn right to teach our children lies that gay is natural.

Gay sex is NOT natural. Nature has designed male for female and vice-versa. Nature has not designed male for male and female for female. STOP LYING that gay sex is natural.

Stop teaching our children lies.

>>Re: “What is so darn special about homo, that when it comes to discrimination, it must be given special attention above all other kinds of discrimination?”
Who asked for that, fuckhead?
>>

YOU, gays asked for that. YOU, gays want to have your darling CSE which you say if not taught, will make children discriminate gays. Look at your own bigoted ways before pointing finger at others.

>>YOU get this right: my private space is my private space just as your private space is yours; the public space is EQUALLY MINE as it is yours.
Comprendez, BODOH!
>>

Good, then get the heck off from our children. Get the heck off from schools. Take your darn CSE and flush it down the toilet. Don’t come back and NEVER disturb our children in schools again – ever!

Teaching our children morals is NOT a public space you can have and definitely NOT your private space. So get off our children.

infp
>> good point. how would you teach your children not to discriminate against gays?
>>

Simple. I tell my children gays are entitled to their space, and my children theirs. Works fine. Any problem?

Vanakam on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 1:53 pm

“Supporter of honest people” aka “Supporter of Gays and lesbians’ hypocrisy”

###You wrote – Why is a neutral stand on homosexuality in CSE cannot be tolerated and even seen as condoning and promoting homosexuality? Neutral means not supporting either of two opposing sides and being impartial. What is your definition of ‘neutral’?

See, you start to twist and conveniently distract others from the main issue again…the issue of CSE was never about homosexuality being viewed as neutral, it is about their insistence that homosexuality is “natural and perfectly normal”, which obviously is not, so, don’t try to change the subject matter, will you?

###Next, you wrote – “Didn’t MM, SM and PM say publicly that homosexuals are born the way they are and they are entitled to live their own lives and should not be discriminated against? Why don’t homophobic people like yourself go and challenge MM, SM and PM? Are you not a real hypocrite yourself?”

Only MM Lee did said he heard from some doctors who “think” that homosexuals are born the way they are (whereas PM Lee and SM Goh did not at all) but he clearly also cast doubt in it scientific truth (because there was no conclusive research done), he did not at all endorse the view as true and correct, but would rather give the benefits of doubt, so don’t try to twist his words to support your own fallacy…that’s unscrupulous!

I also know that PM Lee spoke about homosexuality should not be discriminated against (which many don’t at all, we are only up against irrational and militant homosexuals like you), but it seems you’ve added more of your personal words in their sentences and twisted it to fit your deformed mind again? Anyway, read the folloiwng links and tell me what PM Lee really says and how that contradicts what you claimed here:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/307344/1/.html

Stop also lying here that you a straight person which you are not from your postings so far, I thought you are honest, why not just admit that you are a gay and stopped being a hypocrite…or you are simply ashamed of yourself as being a gay!

By the way, stop also trying to distort what really happens in the EGM, facts are facts and what is good is that we have all the videos to prove it. The only thing that LGBTs had proven is that LGBT seems to be able to shout, yell and scream better than anyone else. Lesson learned, never try to talk sense and logic in front of a bunch of gays and lesbians lunatics, they simply can’t think straight!!

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 2:04 pm

To Anon

“Maybe your interpretation lah…….. MOE already said the sex education ORIGINALLY conducted by MOE was a FAILURE cos of increasing teen pregnancies and spread of sexual diseases……who the hell said “parameters……is to focus on family as basic structure”?

Fundies like u can’t even get the issues right in the first place.”

Funny you should say that its my interpretation when the Aware CSE is the one being suspended. On top of that, they will not be allowed to participate in anything even close to sex education until they REGAIN the trust of parents. Perhaps you should read DPMs admonishment of Aware where he said about family structure. Perhaps you are the one unable to get your facts right.

As always, pro-gays only read what they want. Even when I am critical of ex-new-exco and that I never mention any religious views, I am cast as a religious fundementalist. It must the other fav strategy of saying many times something that is not true and maybe you can convince some that it is. Another example of confusion technique and ignoring of facts.

You further go on and state something really libelous about the government – that they are a bunch of christians fundamentalist – which I think is really beyond comprehension. This is not a good approach. Even if they are (which by the way they are not), as a citizen, you should engage them since you have such strong belief (or are you a pussy again?)

However, I must admit I admire the few pro-gay supporters here not for their belief nor their methods (which I detest) but for their persistence. It will however amount to nought as in the censure of Aware CSE. Why don’t you use more direct methods in approaching the government directly – and calling the government christian fundamentalist is an extremely lame excuse of not engaging them.

fearandignorance on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 2:07 pm

To Vanakam
I would like you to enlighten me on how do u identify a bunch of freaky insane people as lesbian (dressing, mannerism or outer appearance).
I believe the only positive identification of lesbian is by their own admission or declaration?
Did u greet every freaky and insane people and ask for their sexual orientation?
Did they all happen to write “LESBIAN” on their forehead?
Did they all happen to wear pink?
Just as no one can claim that 700+ ppl who vote against no confidence are Christians, the same can be said for the claim for the rest of the crowd as gay.

JohnnyKid on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 2:20 pm

According to crazy bear, everyone who don’t agree with his stupidity are gay.

Same logic behind Thio Su Mien claiming tsunami did not hit Singapore because she prayed.

Which factory are these people manufactured from?

curious on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 3:30 pm

Just curious. What if you have someone you love who is a homosexual. He/She could be your sibling, relative or even your own children. What will you do? Will you treat the same way like what you oppose here. Is there a cure for it? If yes, pls tell me where can they seek treatment and not the spiritual kind of treatment. Thanks.

Joe on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 3:58 pm

To I hate hypocrites

u hv been asked how cum Singapore still got S377A while othr 1st world countries, incl the UK which introduced S377A in S’pore, hv repealed it, but u dun wanna answer…….also dat shows fundies are in govt……..like dat oso “libelous” meh?

aiya wanna argue/debate dan stick to issue & question put to u lah……..rather dan sticking to gahmen say dis or dat like losing trust of parents when someone (oso Alex Au oso say mah) oready shown gahmen caving in to fundies.

oh ya, how cum Chinese/Indian etc wanna embrace Jewish belief Christianity arh? Jesus not Jew meh, since u said b4 S’pore not US so cannot follow US studies?

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 4:58 pm

To Joe:

“u hv been asked how cum Singapore still got S377A while othr 1st world countries, incl the UK which introduced S377A in S’pore, hv repealed it, but u dun wanna answer…….also dat shows fundies are in govt……..like dat oso “libelous” meh?”

Yes it is libelous. I didn’t answer it because exactly what you are saying – changing the subject as part of confusion technique. Especially when the subject that started the exchange was hypocritical approach by pro-gay supporters on not challenging the government. I normally do not wish to fall into their silly trap. Like to keep the focus. Perhaps you should read better so that you know that those who reply to me are the ones not sticking to the issue and answering questions.

Anyway, I’ll bite here. I believe we have not repealed it because of the conservative nature of our society – by the way, I see our government is also conservative (as opposed to them being christian fundamentalist).

I guess pro-gay supporters will never answer about challenging the government because they know they will get nowhere. They also know that the government is their fiercest critic. Also, they know that parents will oppose them. Calling all who don’t embrace pro-gay attitudes as christian fundamentalist is just silly and avoiding the thrust of my initial note.

Calling the government as christian fundamentalist as the reason not to challenge them is lame and just shows what hypocrites pro-gay supporters are. Pussy!

Lastly, Christianity is not a Jewish belief. Its like saying since we are related to Adam and Eve, we are all committing incest – wait that only applies to hetrosexuals only.

infp on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 5:10 pm

solo bear

wrote

“Simple. I tell my children gays are entitled to their space, and my children theirs. Works fine. Any problem?”

of course no problem. and if they say they know somebody who is gay and he’s very nice like buddy buddy, what would you do?

btw i am not trying to say you are no good or anything i just want to understand someone who has a different belief system.

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 5:13 pm

To curious :

I would like to share my thoughts on your questions. I do not know any of my loved ones or relatives are gay. I happened to be a parent of 3 teenagers so I think my opinion may be useful.

If any of my kids turn out to be gay, I will be sad. Naturally, I will do everything I can to see if I can correct it. However, I will still love him/her unconditionally. I will still defend for his/her right to his/her lifestyle – just like I would for all gays – as long as it is done within the informal limits which it is defined inour society.

Treatment? I am not qualified to speak on this. However, I think a percentage of people indulging in gay activities are bi or could even be straight and be may in it for different reasons -just like there are some people involved in bad marriages for all the wrong reasons.

supporter of honest people on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 5:30 pm

To Vinakam and ‘I hate hypocrites’,

I’m a bit confused between the 2 of you now. My comment to Vinakam was not answered, and Vinakam is answering the questions for ‘I hate hypocrites’ without stating he or she is answering for another person. Are you two of a kind or one person trying to be two?

To Vinakam,

In a classroom with a mix of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the CSE instructors will teach that homosexuality is neutral. I’m glad you are ok with this statement.

If you are a heterosexual student and you approach the CSE instructor to question about your sexuality, you will be told that you are natural and perfectly normal.

If you are a homosexual student and you approach the CSE instructor, you will also be told that you are natural and perfectly normal and you don’t need to feel ashamed of yourself.

Isn’t that a neutral position? Can you call it neutral if a CSE instructor tells the homosexual students that they are unnatural and abnormal and only heterosexual students are natural and normal? If that is so, the CSE instructor would have made a non-neutral statement to the homosexual students, right? Please read the definition on neutral if you are confused.

In the first place, why do you keep putting yourself in the position of a homosexual student? Are you a confused homosexual trying to be straight? For me, I’ll only put myself in the position of heterosexual student when I interpret the CSE manual. So, I know I will only be taught by my CSE instructor that homosexual is neutral and my heterosexuality is natural and normal.

When you put yourself in the position of homosexual, you will be taught by CSE instructor that homosexual is neutral and your homosexuality is also natural and normal.

So, isn’t it clear that I’m perfectly straight and you are a confused homosexual trying to be straight and keep interpreting the CSE manual from a homosexual’s viewpoint?

Yes, I did lump up MM, SM and PM position together, but I’m not wrong to state it that way because they have a party whip and they must all sing to the same tune. Can you still remember the “Jailhouse Rock and Beethoven” speech by SM? MM Lee asked his doctors and he was told that homosexuals are genetically born due to the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes and they can’t help it (Please don’t tell me he doesn’t trust what his doctors told him). SM Goh announced in 2003 that homosexuals could hold key positions in the civil service without fear of discrimination. PM Lee said in 2005 that he agreed with SM Goh that homosexuals are people like you and me, and everyone should be given space to live their own life without impinging on other people.

I have only mentioned about what their position on the way homosexuals are born and homosexuals’ rights to live like us without discrimination. What did PM Lee say that contradicted my words? Please tell me or you become the ONE who is twisting their sentences to fit your deformed mind, Vinakam.

So, can you now go and challenge MM, SM and PM on their position on homosexual? If you don’t dare, can you stand back in your toilet bowl and use the FULL FLUSH system this time.

To ‘I hate hypocrites’ or Vinakam or whatever,

Please don’t avoid my questions on whether Derek Hong, TSM and Josie gang are hypocrites and whether you should hate them.

I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 5:51 pm

To supporter of honest people :

“…they are entitled to live their own lives and should not be discriminated against? Why don’t homophobic people like yourself go and challenge MM, SM and PM? Are you not a real hypocrite yourself?”

I have always maintained that I agree with the government’s position that homosexuals should not be discriminated against and entitled to their lifestyles within the current informal confines of our society. Nothing hypocritical here. Only your deranged mind trying to say something that is not there.

“What do you mean I’m childish? Wasn’t the action of the 700+ red shirt supporters of ex-new-exco considered hypocritical? Pls tell me why if you think they are not. You don’t even know who are the real hypocrites in the Aware saga and you dare call yourself a champion against hypocrites.”

Its amazing how pro-gay supporters refuse to read or more likely refuse to acknowledge what has been written. I don’t see what has the Aware EGM has anything to do with what I wrote to attract your response to me. I stated tat pro-gay supporters are hypocritical because they do not challenge the government. Its stupid to try to suck me into another discussion about the Aware EGM – which I did not care to attend and btw I do not support the ex-new-exco anyway.

The last para is another mindless rant which I do not care to comment. Please try to read carefully in the future.

supporter of honest people on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 8:56 pm

To ‘I hate hypocrites’,

I’m equally amazed at how you can refuse to read or more likely refuse to acknowledge what has been written by yourself.

Didn’t you said in your 1st comment that you really hate hypocrites? I’m only helping you to bring into the picture the real hypocrites in the Aware saga to let you hate them. If you can come tell me now this is a mindless rant which you do not care to comment, you are actually telling everyone here that you hate only some ‘hypocrites’ and not all hypocrites. In this case, you CANNOT say you REALLY hate hypocrites. ‘REALLY’ means you MUST hate ALL hypocrites. You are indeed a shameless hypocrite and I’m so embarrassed for you.

I have to let you know that there are no pro-homosexual supporters here, and all these illusions come from your homophobic imagination. However, there are many supporters here for honest people like the old guard.

Please read this statement from Dr Ng Eng Hen – “Our conclusion was in general the guidelines were adhered to. There were not serious deviations from there. But in response to this situation, we wanted to give added assurance to parents and the community so we have instituted these new guidelines. The current Aware Exco, lead by president Dana Lam, is already working closely with MOE on these added assurance. The supporters of honest people will be standing firmly with them like what happened at the EGM. There is no hypocrisy here except you and Vinakam.

I’m sorry to also let you know that you have failed miserably in your feeble attempt to provoke the honest old guard supporters to go against our govt. You can now either go back to your drawing board to further improve on your little devious but pathetic plot or you can join Vinakam in the toilet bowl.

Solo Bear on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 9:35 pm

inpf
>>of course no problem. and if they say they know somebody who is gay and he’s very nice like buddy buddy, what would you do?
>>

You don’t have to ask if they know somebody who is gay. In real life, all three of my children know gay people.

So what do I do? NOTHING. That’s because my children have their own lives to lead after I taught them about gays. This is what they do.

My first daughter is 22. She leaves her gay friends alone and they leave her alone.

My son is 19. When he meets his gay friends he says hi, they say hi. Then he says bye and they say bye.

My youngest daughter is 15. All her friends (gay and straight) eat together during recess. When they finish eating, they leave each other.

Those are REAL LIFE situations and not some hypothetical answers.

>>btw i am not trying to say you are no good or anything i just want to understand someone who has a different belief system.
>>

I have given you the real thing. It is as close as knowing someone of a different belief system as you can get.

Now tell me, am I a bigot? If yes, get the gays to point out where.

If not, please tell the gays here that the bigoted ones are the gays who want me to give up MY RIGHT to teach my children that they have their space.

JohnnyKid on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 11:38 pm

So, the bear tells us that he allows his offspring to greet and have lunch on the same table with gays, but on the condition that the gays leave his children alone immediately after.

Bear has proven he is not a bigot.

infp on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 12:08 am

solo bear

thanks for your reply. now i understand it better.

but the problem is some people consider gay sex to be natural and some people, like you, don’t.

and we have to accept that there’s no way to reach a consensus regarding this.

now, let’s turn our attention to the sex education program.

’supporter of honest people’ wrote this to vinakam, and although it refers to the CSE let’s just take it as an hypothetical scenario- therefore i have deleted the word ‘CSE’.

”
In a classroom with a mix of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the instructors will teach that homosexuality is neutral.

If you are a heterosexual student and you approach the instructor to question about your sexuality, you will be told that you are natural and perfectly normal.

If you are a homosexual student and you approach the instructor, you will also be told that you are natural and perfectly normal and you don’t need to feel ashamed of yourself.

”

i totally agree with this definition of neutrality, but would perhaps add that maybe the sex educator could say stuff like ‘ there are some people who consider gay sex as natural and there are some who don’t, it’s important that we learn to respect each other despite our differences.’

would that be okay for you?

Vanakam on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 12:38 am

Ha Ha Ha…supporter of honest people, I give in to you, you certainly cannot think straight, and you certainly made twisting and distracting with irrational loigc a fine art that is second to none…oh mighty freaky one, I must admit I am not as freaky as you are, and I am unable to twist and turn facts like you do…after all, I’m such a straight, and you are not!! Ha Ha Ha! You win, I lose, OK!!

Looks like you must be the mastermind that had orchestrated the yelling, screaming and shoutings by those freaky LGBT creatures during the EGM right?? Great job…only a great deformed mind like yours can make such “great” uncivilised behaviors!! I kowtow to you, oh mighty freaky one!

Oh, looks like you also enjoy the fetish of flushing toilets too, must have given you lots of “pleasure” everytime you flush your toilet right? Unfortunately, only a freaky creature like you knows how to enjoy such fetish, I’m so straight and boring to enjoy your simple pleausre of toliet flushing. Ha Ha Ha! But if you like tamil songs, I an rather good at it…

I look you will respond and call me further names, and asking me to flush myself off the toilet, but I will have to disappoint you that I will not be making any further response or flushing, but do keep your postings coming, as I’m sure many will find it entertaining, at least, that’s what you are worth, just like the great show you’ve put up with your bunch of LGBT freaks during the EGM!!

Vanakam…sleep well and hope you will not have any wet dreams (from flushing toilets…ha ha ha)!

Kimy on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 1:36 am

To: I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 4:58 pm

Excuse me, what do you mean by being “conservative”?

What are the characteristics of being a conservative in the context of criminalising homosexual sex?

Before the recent amendment to the Penal Code, oral & anal sex were also criminalised irrespective of gender for reason of Singaporeans being “conservative”. No?

So how come oral & anal sex between opposite sex criminal law has been repealed recently?

Kimy on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 1:43 am

Sorry, has ANY research/finding been done to show Singaporeans are “conservative”?

If not how do you prove your assertion.

Do you agree that mainly Christians are so called “conservative”?

There is already one post which shows that Buddhists do not care whether a person is homosexual & also that before the British colonised India and occupied China, homosexuality in these countries were NOT illegal. Just in case you are ignorant, Chinese form around 78% and Indians around 10% of our population…..Christians form around 15% of which I believe Christian fundies form less than 5% of total population.

Kimy on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 1:49 am

To:
I hate hypocrites on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 4:58 pm

You said:

(Lastly, Christianity is not a Jewish belief. Its like saying since we are related to Adam and Eve, we are all committing incest – wait that only applies to hetrosexuals only.)

Don’t twist.

In any case, is incest a Biblical sin?

Just to tell you that you don’t even know what you are talking about

Robox on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:36 am

Bigot Bear,

I’m saying this because you evidently have a greatly impaired faculty of understanding.

If you must understand only one thing before you use up your quota for this lifetime, then let it be this: YOUR rights and YOUR CHILDREN”S rights – so long as they are of minority age only – END where mine BEGINS!

BIGOT!

Robox on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:38 am

And one more thing BIGOT.

Your accounts of your children’s interactions only prove that you do in fact teach your goddamn children to discriminate against gays by tokenizing us to mere niceties.

To All Pros & Cons ... on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 7:47 am

All In All, isn’t ALL just about mutual love in mutual respect?

If so many need to learn such a simple piece of Mutual Peace & Harmony thing by round & round the mulberry bush and using up so much energy too – how you all ever going to save GAIA haw?

Energy Expanded in Waste is just that Energy Expand to Waste. Or is it because Elbow is just a Uniquely Singapore Thing. And you just need to participate to feel your Uniquely Sinkaporeaness lah! It’s roundabout & roundabout CIRCUITOUS Ways I am referring too guys! Ego or what IS at work in your minds? Eterna2 ans a couple of other similar ones make Sense & Sensibility by levelling their one side posting later. THAT”S WISDOM! GREAT!

Solo Bear on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 7:55 am

Johhnykid
>> So, the bear tells us that he allows his offspring to greet and have lunch on the same table with gays, but on the condition that the gays leave his children alone immediately after.
Bear has proven he is not a bigot.
>>

Look at who is the REAL bigot! What more do you want? You do not want to be discriminated, you have it. You want to have your space, you have it.

Now my straight children want to have THEIR space, you say I am a bigot? You mean to say you object that my children want to have THEIR space? You mean you want my children to be buddy buddy with them, accept them as very close friends etc?

Who are YOU to control who my children what they decide what to do? Are you not encroaching into the space of others? And you dare claim that you are not given private space???

As the saying goes, give a gay an inch, he will want a yard. Keep up this attitude and small wonder you won’t convince the straight majority why we should have S377A repealed.

You know, as the saying goes, sometimes a little humility helps. Gays are hardly humble. That’s on top of being very self-centred and selfish.

sicktothebones on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 8:10 am

“Asked by a student to elaborate on laws to protect secularism here, she (Lim Hwee Hua) referred to the recent leadership tussle in the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and said: ‘In this common space, we cannot impose our religions on others. All of us have to carefully guard against that.’

Speaking to The Straits Times later, she added: ‘We must look out for indications, of people who are pushing too far, who test the limits” ST 4.6.09

Solo Bear on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 10:05 am

inpf
>>but would perhaps add that maybe the sex educator could say stuff like ‘ there are some people who consider gay sex as natural and there are some who don’t, it’s important that we learn to respect each other despite our differences.’
would that be okay for you?
>>

That would definitely be better than forcing the idea that homo is natural without further explanation. However, it should be added that the idea that homo is natural is a minority opinion. That is a fact, isn’t it?

Having said that, we should also tell them the FACT that homo sex is high risk – with or without protection. Sexual education programmes should teach facts and not just opinions.

XiaoMei on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 10:20 am

To supporters of honest people

Frankly, I’ve read most of your post, and feel that you like to conveniently take what other people had said out of context so as to support your own biased opinion.

You quoted that Dr Ng Eng Hen had said the “Our conclusion was in general the guidelines were adhered to. There were no serious deviations from there. But in response to this situation, we wanted to give added assurance to parents and the community so we have instituted these new guidelines”

But Dr Ng’s entire statement above was referring to all the other sexuality programmes offered by external agencies and not referring to AWARE’s programme.

Specifically for AWARE, he had in fact lashed out his frustration about their attempts to hide the CSE instructor’s guide from MOE, claiming that it is their internal documents (which contain all the controversial content on homosexuality being neutral, natural and perfectly normal). He quoted:

“It was an internal document…internal documents are internal documents. If you don’t show them to MOE, we will not know about them.”

Last but not least, and specifically in referring to AWARE, MOE official statement (as published in MOE website) was:

“External vendors must recognise that access to students in our schools is a qualified privilege based on trust. This applies to teachers as well. If parents are suspicious and distrustful of providers as having a negative influence on their children, then our programmes will be ineffective. Under the new framework, all external vendors will be assessed anew. For these reasons stated, we will not be able to use AWARE until they have gained the public’s trust for their sexuality programmes.”

“Aware’s trainers will not go to schools, the ministry said, until the group gains the trust of the public for its sexuality programme.”

As to whether she is working with MOE to revised the program, I’m not sure, but it was also reported by Radio 933live that an attempt by Dana Lam to contact MOE to explain AWARE’s case had gone unanswered.

What does this means…AWARE CSE Program is finished…we will not have anymore sexuality programmes from AWARE in our school that teaches our children wayward alternative lifestyles…hurray!!

By the way, not supporting AWARE CSE Program does not means that people are anti-gay, they have their space to live in Singapore, and they deserve recognition, respect and empathy like anyone else, so long as they keep their alternative lifestyle to themselves, and do not try to encroached into other people’s values and belief, which was the same message given to Josie Lau and team, which was so-labelled as “christians fundamentalists” throughout this saga!!

I hate hypocrites on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 1:23 pm

to “supporter of honest people” :

Its in my 2nd note that I said anything about pro-gay comments to be hypocritical. I attached it here for your reference.

“I find all the pro-gay comments here hypocritical because they refuse to engage the government and challenge them for removing the Aware’s CSE. Yet these same individuals post comments about how all conservative parents are some religious fanatics or militants.”

Your subsequent rant seems more even more bizarre as you continue with your confusion strategy. Really not worth my effort.

You went on to quote Dr Ng and as usual quoting it out of context and try to spin a conclusion that is total wrong. You must have copied it from some other forum without realizing that elsewhere the clowns that has refered to this quote has been demolished about how they (like you) has been shown to have selective reading and arriving at bizarre conclusions. Something which seems like your forte. Well, do bask in it as nowhere else other than the Pro-gay inflitrated Aware will it be welcomed.

curious on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 1:30 pm

Vanakam

“Oh, looks like you also enjoy the fetish of flushing toilets too, must have given you lots of “pleasure” everytime you flush your toilet right? Unfortunately, only a freaky creature like you knows how to enjoy such fetish, I’m so straight and boring to enjoy your simple pleausre of toliet flushing. Ha Ha Ha! But if you like tamil songs, I an rather good at it…”

What’s wrong with flushing toilet. You mean you dun flush after using it?

I hate hypocrites on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 1:56 pm

To Kimy :

By definition conservative means “disposed to preserve existing conditions”. I am sure it could have slightly different meanings with different people but shouldn’t be too far off. By that meaning, it is important to note that existing conditions changes over time – just like acceptance of woman rights.

You shouldn’t assume that I will not support repealing scetion 377A. I only said that it was not repeal probably because of the nature of our conservative society.

“Do you agree that mainly Christians are so called “conservative”?”

I think Christians are not any more conservative than atheists. However, being christian would mean you have some personal beliefs that are different from non-christians. When these areas are being examined, of course they would seem conservative. Well, that’s just my opinion.

“In any case, is incest a Biblical sin?

Just to tell you that you don’t even know what you are talking about”

Incest is a biblical sin. It may not have started out to be with Adam and Eve but by Moses’ time, it is. I however, do not wish to touch on the bible because I have and still want to debate this subject on why Pro-Gay supporters refuse to engage the government from a non-religious point of view.

Hmm. I do not know what I am talking about? Well, you seem to know something I don’t. Please tell me why pro-gay supporters especially those involved in Aware after getting severely admonished by the government, when Dana lam has been told in no uncertain terms that she will need to regain the trust of parents, yet they only have the guts to write in these forums and not engage thegovernment more directly and with the same venom?

Here’s a thought. What do you think if we go out and get an independent company to get parents opinions on what people think about Aware CSE? Will we find that parents are overwhelmingly agianst it? I will bet on it.

Eterna2 on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 2:31 pm

Solobear <<

If u agreed with infp’s statement. Then why did you disagree with AWARE’s CSE? What he wrote is exactly what that is being taught in the CSE.

I hate hypocrites <<

1. Based on currently social norm, Singapore society in general is not ready to full accept homosexuality due to misconceptions, and misinformation. And to bring this up to the gov in spite of lack of popular support, the LGBT would be accused as militants. So is pragmatism = hypocrisy?

2. It is not the LGBT who attacked the values of the ultra-conservatives. It is the ultra-conservatives that seek to further discriminate against the LGBT by insisting that LGBT cannot be de-stigmatized (as such LGBT is normal, and not wrong).

3. Is it hypocrisy to defend oneself, when accused? Who are the ones that accused the LGBT of gay agenda? Who are the ones that spreads misinformation about LGBT? Is it the government or the ultra-conservatives? And hence, who should they answer to? The government or the ultra-conservatives who accused them?

4. Do not mix up, the goal of achieving equality for LGBT, with defending one’s reputation.

5. As clearly stated, AWARE CSE is removed because of the loss in trust. Note very clearly, it is due to the loss of general support and not because the CSE is wrong. It is logically fallacious to assume loss of trust = CSE is wrong. It is just as fallacious as assuming a person is guilty just because the general public believe he is a thief. Public official statements are always carefully literal to avoid misunderstanding.

6. I am in agreement that there is no point having an AWARE CSE if a huge majority of the population is wary of it. I see it as a compromise by the government to pacify the conservatives. Essentially, it just meant, the population is not ready for such liberal stand yet. So just leave it until it is more appropriate.

7. I do agree there are normal parents who are just conservatives – some due to personal beliefs, some due to misconceptions about homosexuality. However, a significant proportion of the “against” online posters are often trolls. Vanakam is a good example. His replies are unconstructive and contribute nothing to the discussion. And these “religious” trolls far outnumbers the “secular” or “LGBT” trolls. In fact, I have yet to seen any LGBT trolls – they are wiser than that (probably due to experiences).

8. But obvious, some considered me to be a troll, due to my excessive number of posts. But the fact is, all my post are reasoned arguments to refute or highlights the misconceptions or mistakes in their statement.

9. In short, both sides are just as guilty of stereotyping. However, just based on post count alone. The number of “trash” post by against-AWARE CSE far outnumbers the number of “trash” post by pro-AWARE CSE (etc).

10. Hypocrisy is the act of being less critical of oneself than of others.

supporter of honest people on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 2:32 pm

Dear Vanakam,

My heart and sympathy go out to you for staying up late to pen your last words to me.

Firstly, I honestly feel a bit sad now because I blame myself for not being able to help you come to term with your inhibited homosexuality inclination during your short stay with so many nice people in this wonderful place. Secondly, I think you could have come to a better ending if I or someone else here had only noticed your deranged behaviour early on and advised you to see a good psychiatrist quickly before you started laughing hysterically by yourself late last night.

Please don’t worry too much, many people here will still remember you. Although you didn’t manage to save yourself, it is still a big relief to let you know that the valuable lesson of your unfortunate plight will help many others who are lost in their own bigotry self to better understand the importance of self respect and tolerance to others in our multi-racial and multi-religion secular society in the many years to come. You may now go in peace, Vanakam.

supporters of honest people on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 2:34 pm

To Xiao Mei,

It’s so nice to hear your more civilized comments as I was still feeling a bit sad to lose poor Vanakam to his detriment this morning. Hopefully, you do not share his identity crisis problem.

Can you please point out to me what is my biased opinion and why it is biased? I always wish to correct and improve myself as an honest person and I sincerely hope to hear your advice.

I honestly don’t quite understand your logic on Dr Ng’s comments as not referring to Aware’s CSE programme. Please do clarify further. To me, the whole episode that led to Dr Ng’s statement was clearly due to Aware’s CSE programme alone. If it is really the case as you have stated, it would be very unprofessional of Dr Ng to talk about all other sexuality programmes and leaving out the main subject matter. I’ll like to believe you are right about Dr Ng from the bottom of my heart, but my conscience tells me that Dr Ng is smarter then many people to have intentionally left out Aware’s CSE program from his statement. Are you very disappointed with Dr Ng?

I’m afraid to say you have taken Dr Ng’s frustration totally out of context here. He was unhappy with the accusations made against MOE for not knowing the confidential document owned by another organization, which is Aware. It is the dishonest people who steal the document and release it to public with the intention to distort some statements contained in it. Please refer back to my earlier comment to Vanakam on the proper interpretation of the CSE manual if you are confused by the distorted charges from those dishonest people.

It is quite puzzling on why you pasted the MOE official statement to support your allegation that I had taken Dr Ng’s comments out of context. I read them many times and I still cannot find any contradictions between what Dr Ng said and the official statement. Isn’t all that were mentioned boil down to the added assurance required from Aware by MOE?

Did you say you hear news from Radio 933live? When was that? I heard their songs are nice and the station normally has more gossips than news. Talking about effective news reading, I suggest you either listen to the horse mouth, if possible, or read from mainstream news sources, but you still need to do cross reference with other news sites and commentary blogs like here.

As to whether Aware is working with MOE to improve the CSE program or not, I concluded that they are working together because Dana Lam did say in her release statement that Aware will approach MOE to address the concerns of the petitioners and MOE had also said they will work with the external educators on their sexuality programmes. Unless you have inside knowledge, you could be accusing one party is lying to the public by saying they are not working together. To me, it is in the interest of Aware to meet and work with MOE, so naturally they can’t be the liar. Do you have knowledge to imply that MOE is the liar? I wouldn’t challenge the OB marker here if I were you.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Aware CSE program is finished? I can still find the CSE program alive and well when I visited their official website just now.

There is a mistake in your last paragraph. CSE program is neutral and it does not support or condemn any sexuality, so there is no pro-anything here. Please read my earlier comment on CSE program to Vanakam if you are unsure. People who do not want their children to attend the AWARE CSE program because they do not want to be neutral can jolly well opt out of it when it is offered to them. I have only labeled Derek Hong, TSM and Josie gang as dishonest people and hypocrites, and I share the same view with many here that there is nothing against any religion.

I hope you are satisfied with my reply, Xiao Mei. Please do address my questions to you.

infp on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:06 pm

solo bear

wrote

“That would definitely be better than forcing the idea that homo is natural without further explanation. However, it should be added that the idea that homo is natural is a minority opinion. That is a fact, isn’t it?”

i am not sure if it’s a minority opinion. lgbt may be a minority lifestyle but there are non-lgbt who think lgbt is natural. or like me, i don’t really care if it’s natural or unnatural, it’s not an issue for me.

in any case, why care if it’s majority or minority? hinduists are quite the minority here as compared to buddhists but they are still accorded the same sets of religious rights.

what’s your definition of natural?

supporter of honest people on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:20 pm

To ‘I hate hypocrites’,

I must admit I admire your thick-skinned, persistence and shameless attitude, but not for your way of argument, your belief nor your pathethic methods (which many detest here). I have expected you to be able to debate an issue with higher level of maturity than Vanakam, but you have disappointed me.

If you cannot be a champion against hypocrites, you should at least graciously change your pseudonym to ‘observ’ or something like that. Now, I feel a bit pity for you.

Be my guest, please go ahead and demolish what I said about Dr Ng’s comments if they are wrong. Sigh, I always thought clown is a dying profession until I see you and your comrades in the other forums. Please invite them to congregate in this thread to save me the trouble of explaining repeatedly all over the web why your group likes to look at things through tinted glasses.

Do you know you sound very much like a broken recorder and is somehow stuck in playing the same single track over and over again. Please address all my earlier questions to you like an adult. Your previous reply only befits what whiners can churn out.

Sloo on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:50 pm

The fact is that if those women / parents were against what AWARE was teaching in schools, they should have lodged a complaint to the authorities . The concerned parent who lodged the complaint about CSE to Dr. Thio could have gone directly to MOE. Or Dr. Thio herself could have lodged the compaint on behalf of the parent. By doing so, they might have got support from other like minded individuals without so much of the opposition they faced by taking over a secular organisation by stealth.

Lets not forget too the new team sacking of dept heads and staff, cold shouldering and ignoring past members and advisors, changing of locks and installation of security cameras, the indiscriminate posting of confidential materials online and finally, the revelation that all their actions were pre-planned and overseen by their infamous mentor Dr. Thio. These are not random acts of conicidence; rather they smack of insidious and sneaky planning with other hidden objectives and motives beyond just the CSE manual.

CSE may just be one of the AWARE programmes that were targetted by the new exco; if the team had been re-elected at the EOGM, they might have proceeded to disrupt other prgrammes; abortion (taking a very pro-family stance again) and possibly women’s rights in Singapore (check out COOS website on their opinion of a woman’s role in the family and society).

You can agree to disagree but lets not deny the facts and resort to name calling each time mud is slung at you when you have thrown the mud balls at us in the first place.

Solo Bear on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:50 pm

Eterna2
>> If u agreed with infp’s statement. Then why did you disagree with AWARE’s CSE?
>>

That’s because what I agreed with infp is different from CSE. Infp asked me what my children would do if they knew gays. I told as it is.

>>What he wrote is exactly what that is being taught in the CSE.
>>

Nope. He tried to get a positive answer from me, about what my children would do with gay friends, then slip that answer into CSE. Just like AWARE slipping homo into their CSE.

>>I hate hypocrites
>>

Then you should hate AWARE and infp for their dishonest slipping in CSE, after getting my approval for no discrimination against gays.

>>Based on currently social norm, Singapore society in general is not ready to full accept homosexuality due to misconceptions, and misinformation.
>>

That is made worse by gays’ own attitude by calling others bigots just because they do not agree with gays.

>>It is not the LGBT who attacked the values of the ultra-conservatives. It is the ultra-conservatives that seek to further discriminate
>>

Wake up, wake up! Many are willing to let gays their space. It is gays who want MORE than that, expecting others to give up their space for gays.

Look at how unsatisfied your fellow gays are, when I said my children do not discriminate gays. Gays even want to have the right to tell my children who should be their friends!

>>Is it hypocrisy to defend oneself, when accused?
>>

It is hypocrisy to ask for private space, yet do not allow private space for others.

>>Do not mix up, the goal of achieving equality for LGBT, with defending one’s reputation.
>>

YOU should not mix up achieving equality with the right to tell non-gays what their children should be taught.

>>As clearly stated, AWARE CSE is removed because of the loss in trust.
>>

WAKE UP!!!!! Aware CSE was taken out because it was against MOE’s guidelines!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!

>>I am in agreement that there is no point having an AWARE CSE if a huge majority of the population is wary of it.
>>

The majority is against it because of AWARE’s covert approach. But it was taken off because MOE felt that it was inappropriate. Wake up from your slumber!

>>In short, both sides are just as guilty of stereotyping. However, just based on post count alone. The number of “trash” post by against-AWARE CSE far outnumbers the number of “trash” post by pro-AWARE CSE (etc).
>>

There is more trash against Christians in many pro-gay blogs and in the ST than all the comments on CSE put together.

>>Hypocrisy is the act of being less critical of oneself than of others.
>>

Gays should stop talking about self. You are being too narcissistic.

I hate hypocrites on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 3:57 pm

To Eterna2 :

I will try to respond to some of your points. Please excuse me if I miss any out which you want a response on.

“Based on currently social norm, Singapore society in general is not ready to full accept homosexuality due to misconceptions, and misinformation. And to bring this up to the gov in spite of lack of popular support, the LGBT would be accused as militants. So is pragmatism = hypocrisy?”

I think the reasons for singapore’s society to not be ready to accept homosexuality is varied. I would add to the point about culture, religious and even hope (for the next generation).
I am glad that you agree thatthere is lack of supportfor LGBT but I think today more than ever, there is a high level of acceptance for homosexuals to be entitled their lifestyle.

My understanding of hypocrisy is
“a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.”
Can pragmatism be consider hypocrisy? My view is no. My comments had always been critical about pro-gay people who pushes in the web (btw very intensively) should do likewise with the government – otherwise, they will be seen as hypocrites to try to paint having a desired/publicly approved attitude which in your own words is not true.

“It is not the LGBT who attacked the values of the ultra-conservatives. It is the ultra-conservatives that seek to further discriminate against the LGBT by insisting that LGBT cannot be de-stigmatized (as such LGBT is normal, and not wrong). ”

I don’t see anyone saying tha Gays should be discriminated against. I see it as parents wanting to control what their children is taught. Again, no pro-gay supporters will accept this viewpoint nor will most parent see it otherwise. So, I think it must be left at that.

” Is it hypocrisy to defend oneself, when accused? Who are the ones that accused the LGBT of gay agenda? Who are the ones that spreads misinformation about LGBT? Is it the government or the ultra-conservatives? And hence, who should they answer to? The government or the ultra-conservatives who accused them?”

Yes, if he is trying to protray that its a publicly approved viewpoint. What misinfo is being spread about LGBT? I am not aware. Ultra-conservatives? Who are they? Surely not I for I support gay rights to their lifestyle but within the informal constraints of the our current conservative society.

“Do not mix up, the goal of achieving equality for LGBT, with defending one’s reputation.”

I do not. However, its important what it means equality for LGBT. Does it mean entitlement to their lifestyle. Heck, I support that. Does it mean that they get to teach my kids the essense of their lifestyle? Well, no way! That’s totally under my charge. Are they prevented from holding jobs? pay? education? No, they have everything that hetrosexuals have. What equality do they want?

“As clearly stated, AWARE CSE is removed because of the loss in trust. Note very clearly, it is due to the loss of general support and not because the CSE is wrong. It is logically fallacious to assume loss of trust = CSE is wrong. …”

The DPM has clearly stated that Aware CSE contains inapproriate and explicit information that exceeded the parameters. I interpret it to mean as AWARE CSE = WRONG. Clearly, much of the package is within the parameters otherwise it would not have been approved in the first place. The section that is wrong is hidden only in the instructors manual. The lost of trust is the consequence of it being wrong. Again, no pro-gay supporter will ever accept this… you know what I will say.

“…compromise by the government to pacify the conservatives. Essentially, it just meant, the population is not ready for such liberal stand yet. So just leave it until it is more appropriate.”

I think all governments are in it to win elections. the publicly approved position is not to highlight homosexual lifestyle (please do not read this as discrimination) and yes, it will just have to wait. the government actions will need to reflect the public view.

“… a significant proportion of the “against” online posters are often trolls. ….

I try not to get personal. I know as others, I sometimes get sucked in. No comment here.

“In short, both sides are just as guilty of stereotyping. However, just based on post count alone. The number of “trash” post by against-AWARE CSE far outnumbers the number of “trash” post by pro-AWARE CSE (etc).”

That’s your opinion. By your own admission, the majority view is that singapore society is conservative. This would mean pro-gay supporters are in the minority. Yet, in most forums, you will see pro-gay posts matches or exceed the anto-gay posts. You do the math and conclude what’s trash and what’s not. Not for me to impose my interpretation.

“Hypocrisy is the act of being less critical of oneself than of others.”

I disagree with your definition.

infp on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 4:05 pm

solo bear

wrote

“Having said that, we should also tell them the FACT that homo sex is high risk – with or without protection. Sexual education programmes should teach facts and not just opinions.”

any kind of sex is high risk without protection. i am sure any decent sex education program will already have this aspect covered. pardon my ignorance, but why do you say it is high risk even with protection?

JohnnyKid on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 5:51 pm

Bear,

I guess you have reached the limits of your intellect and spirituality. To you, non-discrimination equals to not clubbing them on the head when you see them. I don’t think at your age, you can improve any further, so I will just leave you at it.

Give up lah on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 6:46 pm

Wah, “By definition conservative means “disposed to preserve existing conditions”.

The “existing condition” ex ante in China, India and Singapore as it then was before the British colonised/occupied these countries was that homosexuality was NOT illegal, as the other ppl have said.

also stated was that Singapore’s population, being mainly Chinese & Indian, are NOT conservative in the fundie Christian sense………so not repealing S377A is the because of fundies in the gahmen……..hypocritical of Ministers to say don’t mix religion with politics when it is the fundie Christians who opposed homosexuality and are behind the retention of S377A thereby DISCRIMINATING against a minority group because of their sexual pre-disposition which various studies and research show to be BIOLOGICAL, contrary to the spirit of the Singapore Constitution.

As for INCEST being sin in the Bible, how could it being NOT a sin at the beginning of your God’s creation later become a SIN?
That means so called GOD’s values DO change ………… therefore people, especially the Christian fundies got their Bible knowledge WRONG.

Getting back to the AWARE CSE, the acknowledged TRUTH is that homosexuality IS NORMAL and is NOT ILLEGAL even as S377A was not repealed because gahmen has given undertaking that S377A would never be enforced, contrary to the LIES/DISTORTIONS/HALF TRUTHS spread by the fundie Christians.

Solo Bear on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 7:31 pm

infp
>>any kind of sex is high risk without protection.
>>

This is where the gays spread their lies. Vaginal sex with single partner as in marriage is definitely much safer than anal sex with multiple partners as what is practised by many gays.

>>i am sure any decent sex education program will already have this aspect covered. pardon my ignorance, but why do you say it is high risk even with protection?
>>

Pardon me! Are you saying that anal sex with multiple partners, like what gays are doing is safe with condoms? Is that what you want to teach to school children?

JohnnyKid
>> To you, non-discrimination equals to not clubbing them on the head when you see them. I don’t think at your age, you can improve any further, so I will just leave you at it.
>>

As I said, gays cannot accept an answer other than we should support their cause. Any answer that is not anywhere near that, is considered a bigoted answer. Thanks for confirming my point.

Robox:
>> If you must understand only one thing before you use up your quota for this lifetime, then let it be this: YOUR rights and YOUR CHILDREN”S rights – so long as they are of minority age only – END where mine BEGINS!
>>

It is YOU who do not understand. I have said many, many times, that gays have their rights.

But sorry delusional fella. Where their age of minority ends, is where THEIR rights begin. That is the time where they can tell gays to get lost, and you better accept that, because it is THEIR RIGHT!

You and your fellow gays can only blame yourselves for that, because you have shown my 2 older children what gangster tactics you use at AWARE’s EGM, in the ST and in the many blogs.

Blame no one but yourselves for the perpetual stereotyping that gays do nothing except bawl, bawl, bawl.

You did a fine job shooting self in foot.

Eterna2 on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 8:31 pm

Solo bear <>but would perhaps add that maybe the sex educator could say stuff like ‘ there are some people who consider gay sex as natural and there are some who don’t, it’s important that we learn to respect each other despite our differences.’
would that be okay for you?
>>

I repeat again. What infp said is exactly what that is being taught in the AWARE CSE class. It is phrased in the similar manner. It is not a 1 liner as u assumed.

So I fail to understand ur reply. But I am not going to discuss with u further, because u have different stands against different pple, and against different arguments. And I do not wish to waste my time with u.

Eterna2 on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 9:26 pm

I hate hypocrites <100 posts. Are any of them trash? Nope, every single one of them are based on logical argument with references to scientific journals. The volume of posts is not a reflection of number of trash posts.

2. In contrast, for every single post I made, there are at least 5 others which are pure allegations and insults, without even an argument or opinion.

3. U don’t see as much here, because it is moderated. Trash post are usually trashed.

a on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 10:30 pm

Some try to argue that homosexuality is not abnormal. But the fact is homosexuals can’t reproduce the way a complimentary male and female couple do.

Yah granted, it may be an uncontrollable problem with congenital factors. So, you can say that it’s not really just a straightforward psychological problem.

But that’s doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s wrong to make it another “normal” mode of life.

annoyed on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 10:52 pm

“A hypocrite is defined as a person who fails to practice what they preach.”
‘I hate hypocrites’ hv been exposed as a hypocrite. Whenever he is asked to make a stand against the real hypocrites like Thio/Josie group, he will conveniently choose to skip the question by calling it a confusion strategy.

“A self-hater is defined as an idiot with great self-esteem issue that he or she is bigoted against members of his or her own type.”
Of all available nicknames, he insists to use “I hate hypocrites”? Isn’t this a strong indication of self-hatred???

Eterna2, it is not worth wasting your precious time to talk to a self-hating hypocrite unless you are a doctor trying to cure his sick mind.

His main objective here is to distract readers from the main issue of this article – militant religionism.

His secondary objective is to instigate LGBTs to challenge the govt so that his fanatic group can call the LGBTs as the real danger and threat to our society instead of the militant religionism. He is definitely one of the religious militants from Thio/Josie group.

Eterna2 on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 12:17 am

a <<

Do monks and celibate priests contribute to procreation? Are they behaving naturally? Should celibacy not be taught at all, and should be a negative concept, because it prevent procreation?

How about sterile couples? They are they normal or abnormal? Can they claim to be a normal person?

And lastly, it is NOT a psychological problem. It is the anti-gays who are spreading the lies. If you wish to see it, it is more of a natural deviant. Like some people are born left handed.

Are left handers not allowed to be a “normal” person? Left handedness should not be a normal mode of life? Like in the dark ages, where left handedness is a sign of demonic influences? And should be stoned or burn at stake?

What the LGBT are doing now are fighting against this misconceptions and misinformation. Why is it that the scientific and medical community readily accepted the stance that homosexuality is normal, and is not a behavioral problem?

Because u need to examine properly what is homosexuality, and what are the consequences of homosexuality, and why are u afraid homosexuality. Is it just because they are different, but u find it disgusting? Or u fear that they will influence ur kids to become homosexuals?

If sexual orientation is so malleable. They would not be any homosexual at all. DO u think any normal person would CHOOSE to be a homosexual and be despised by the general public? And examine urself. How did u find the opposite gender attractive?

Did the TV, or ur teacher or ur dad tell u that the opposite gender is attractive? Or did u just realise it urself?

Wat I am trying to do is to de-stigmatize homosexuality. It is an instinctual reaction by a heterosexual, because it is naturally distasteful to us. That is why most pple dislike homosexual – it is a natural reaction (another indication tat there is little choice in sexual orientation).

However, we must overcome our prejudice and examine the facts of homosexuality itself. Although we are disgusted by it, are we justified to discriminate against they?

It is irrational. It is like u like apple and hate durian, and most people like apples and hate durians. Now there are a bunch of pple who love durians and hate apples.

But these pple who love durians are constantly accused of being not normal by the vast majority. A reasonable result would be a significant proportion of these durian lovers would just give up, and eat apple instead, to pretend to conform.

The fact that, it is extremely difficult or near impossible for them to not like durian and start loving apples. In the end, they all end up unhappy, becuz they have to force themselves to eat apples (small number), but majority will just stop eating both apples and durian, just to fit in. They end up unhappy and discontent.

The remainders that chose to stand by their preference, get discriminated and condemned for being unnatural, stubborn, etc.

The fact is homosexuality is not harmful socially, just different, and becuz the way sexual orientation works, heterosexual will find homosexual behavior disgusting, and vice versa. A strong instinctual dislike (this show how entrench sexual orientation is).

And as I said, there are pple who choose not to have children, and there are those who can’t. Homosexuality is no different. And inability for pro-creation is not a reason for discrimination.

Is it justified to say durian lovers are not normal and wrong. And durian lovers should not claim that durian eating is a natural act for durian lovers?

Ah Kow on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 12:56 am

To : supporter of honest people
I read and agreed with your views.

Conclusion on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 1:15 am

Just by reading the postings of freaky gays and lesbians here, it had reinforced in me that we ought to now treat them as militants trying to impose their freaky, sneaking, abnormal, deformed lifestyle and values on mainstreamers like me who believed in a “One Man, One Woman” family.

I was quite indifferent to gays and lesbians in the past, believing that much as they are deformed, they meant no harm to society, but from the way you GLBT freaks had posted in TOC, ST and WayangParty, it had awaken me and had change me totally, and I realized that I should now stand-up and fight against you bunch of militant GLBT. I have also no more respects for GLBT after witnessing the videos of GLBT’s unruly behaviors in AWARE EGM, and I certainly will despise them from now on!

And yes, I know in your always despicable and freaky mind that you would now call me a christian fundie, which I am not and I am not accountable to any god or anybody…and it was never a war between religion and secularism, it is a war that the mainstreams need to fight against freaky LGBT creatures, so that they will not be able to disrupt and destroy the healthy environment and lifestyle that kids should grow-up in.

You GLBTs are simply a curse to your parents and malignant cancers of our society!!

infp on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 7:39 am

wrote

“Some try to argue that homosexuality is not abnormal. But the fact is homosexuals can’t reproduce the way a complimentary male and female couple do.

But that’s doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s wrong to make it another “normal” mode of life.”

are you saying then that a heterosexual woman who is biologically unfit to conceive is not normal?

infp on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 7:55 am

solo bear

wrote

“Pardon me! Are you saying that anal sex with multiple partners, like what gays are doing is safe with condoms? Is that what you want to teach to school children?”

………

good point. so we tell the children ‘ anal sex and promiscuity will pose a higher risk regardless of whether it’s practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals.’

would that be okay for you?

Solo Bear on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 12:44 pm

infp
>> good point. so we tell the children ‘ anal sex and promiscuity will pose a higher risk regardless of whether it’s practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals.’
would that be okay for you?
>>

Higher risk than what?

If you mean to say that anal sex is dangerous whether practised by homo or hetero as a statement on its own, I’ll drink to that!

That being the case, let’s retain S377A and bring back S377. That way gays cannot claim discrimination any more.

What say you?

Eterna2,

No need to sound apologetic and defensive. I have said gays should be allowed their space. All gays need to do is to respect space of others and others will respect yours.

curious on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 12:45 pm

To Conclusion,

I was skeptical like you before. But I view it with an open mind. After reading both side of all the posting in TOC, ST WayangParty etc, am concluded that homosexual is normal.

My guess is that you already make up your mind and thus not willing to listen to logic and facts. The problem is that most people only want to hear what they want to hear. They will not listen to anythings against their beliefs no matter how logic it may sound.

Eterna2. Well said. Your post makes alot of sense.

fearandignorance on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 2:38 pm

>> Solo Bear: Higher risk than what?

If you mean to say that anal sex is dangerous whether practised by homo or hetero as a statement on its own, I’ll drink to that!

That being the case, let’s retain S377A and bring back S377. That way gays cannot claim discrimination any more.
>>>>>>>

u not making much sense.
following your train of thought..
driving car is dangerous.
Driving a plane is even more dangerous.
Let ban all driving of cars and planes!

Solo Bear on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 3:28 pm

fearandignorance
>> u not making much sense.
following your train of thought..
driving car is dangerous.
Driving a plane is even more dangerous.
Let ban all driving of cars and planes!
>>

So can you see that when I say that gays have their space but should not overstep it, I am allowing gays to have anal sex but gays MUST NOT force that idea on others?

Go ahead and infect yourselves with Aids if you want. But it is another thing trying to tell others (especially children) that what you do is safe – condoms or no condoms.

So? Is that OK with you that you have space but not to encroach into space of others?

Or do you prefer that I am consistent and say no anal sex for both homos and heteros?

Take your pick please.

Conclusion on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 3:57 pm

Curious,

>>>“The problem is that most people only want to hear what they want to hear. They will not listen to anythings against their beliefs no matter how logic it may sound.”

Speaking for yourself too?? You have already made up your mind too!

>>>“I was skeptical like you before. But I view it with an open mind. After reading both side of all the posting in TOC, ST WayangParty etc, am concluded that homosexual is normal.”

Great, now you are officially a proud gay! The GLBT will be really proud of you!!

Anonymous on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 5:18 pm

solobear says:
“So can you see that when I say that gays have their space but should not overstep it, I am allowing gays to have anal sex but gays MUST NOT force that idea on others?”

No one is forcing anything on anyone.

The strange thing is the government has legalised anal sex for straights but not gays. This could be seen as encouraging it for straights but discouraging it for gays.

If you believe that it’s ok for gays but not straights, then you must believe the government should have legalised it for gays, and left it (and oral sex) illegal for straights.

Anonymous on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 5:28 pm

Clearly some astroturfing going on here.

Solo Bear on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 7:47 pm

>> No one is forcing anything on anyone.
>>

Really?

I exercise MY RIGHT and that right is NOT to support the gay cause. Gays call me a bigot because of that. Why can’t gays respect MY RIGHT?

As for S377 and S377A, I am OK either way. If gays are so picky about discrimination that S377 is repealed but not S377A, then I say heck, let’s be fair to all and return S377 into force.

I am NOT going out of my way to just to support repealing S377A.

But I will definitely go all out to see that homo is not promoted as natural in schools.

That is MY RIGHT and I EXPECT gays to accept that – just as gays expect me to respect their right to chug each other in private.

Fair is fair. To each his own way.

curious on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 8:10 pm

“And yes, I know in your always despicable and freaky mind that you would now call me a christian fundie, which I am not and I am not accountable to any god or anybody”

Speaking for yourself too?? You are already one!!

a on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 8:46 pm

Eterna 2, as I replied elsewhere, celibacy and being left-hand (and durian-affinity) have this common point. The people practise in private with no effect on others. Yah, they are eye-catching. So, it’s a conversation point, and they do stand out in the crowd. But that’s it. They don’t affect us. Apart from that, discounting any other disabilities, they have the same abilities as others, meaning they’re just as normal.

Celibacy is a choice by normal people who choose to practise their faith in their own lives. It’s quite different for sterile people or those with fertility problem. They themselves can accept it’s an abnormal condition humbly or perhaps with some grief. They don’t go around arguing it’s absolutely normal.

LGBTs can also live their private lives. The community at large is tolerant to the individuals. But it seems with the Aware episode, people try to twist this condition into something normal, and they argue that the whole society should see the same.

Look in the west, they ultimately argue that a whole new social unit (same-sex family) should be instituted to facilitate their way of life. They call it a way of life, not an abnormal condition (as it should be in a 2-sex population). They try to twist an aberrant condition to a normal thing, and introduce a radically new social unit in our midst that everyone else must absolutely accept or face censure.

Normal? Private? No effect on others? It’s not any of the 3.

Peaceman on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 9:39 pm

Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced, believe not because it is your national belief, believe not because you have been made to believe from your childhood, but reason truth out, and after you have analyzed it, then if you find it will do good to one and all, believe it, live up to it and help others live up to it.

Eterna2 on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 11:01 pm

Kudo. U just answered ur own question. Why do pple call u a bigot.

Not because u do not support gay cause, but because of

“But I will definitely go all out to see that homo is not promoted as natural in schools.”

But I am confident u do not get it. But I will break it down for u again:

Homo is not natural – ur stand
Homo is natural – my stand, scientific stand

If u can “definitely go all out to see that homo is not promoted as natural in schools”

Can I “definitely go all out to see that homo is promoted as natural in schools”?

It is my RIGHT? And can I EXPECT pple like u to accept that?

Solo Bear on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 11:53 pm

Eterna2,
>> Can I “definitely go all out to see that homo is promoted as natural in schools”?
It is my RIGHT? And can I EXPECT pple like u to accept that?
>>

No, that is NOT your right. MOE has kicked you in the butt for that.

But if a programme states that homo is not natural, I am sure MOE will accept it.

Want to put your money on that?

Face it. Gays have overstepped their boundary sneaking in their dirty CSE via AWARE and are now facing the consequences of their own misdeeds.

As I said, if you want your rights to be respected, respect the rights of others. What is being taught to children is NOT your right.

Don’t claim it is yours – ever. Got that?

annoyed on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 12:07 am

Conclusion means judgment has been made and case is closed. Isn’t it clear to all that this person has chosen to close up the mind?

Curious means eager to learn with an inquisitive attitude. Isn’t it clear to all that this person has chosen to keep an open mind?

What is there to argue when everything is so obvious already?

A piece of advice for ‘curios’ – There is no point to discuss anything further with a closed-minded person for you will be just wasting your precious time.

infp on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 6:10 am

solo bear

just for the sake of understanding, let’s just assume gays have become monogamous. and statistics shows that there is no unnaturally high incidence of stds among gays. let’s even stretch it to the furthest and say medical science have become so good that stds are no longer a concern.

would you then be alright with them or anyone saying anal sex is natural?

supporter of honest people on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 9:17 am

To ‘a’

“The people practise in private with no effect on others. Yah, they are eye-catching. So, it’s a conversation point, and they do stand out in the crowd. But that’s it. They don’t affect us. Apart from that, discounting any other disabilities, they have the same abilities as others, meaning they’re just as normal.” – a

Isn’t the above paragraph described by you equally applicable to the LGBTs?

Eterna2 is just telling you that it is normal for left-handed people to use left hand more often and for right handed people to use right hand more. Isn’t it the same as saying homosexuality is normal for homosexuals just as heterosexuality is normal for heterosexuals? Why can’t the whole society see it is as normal when the correct term is applied to each individual’s sexuality?

There is no one arguing here that homosexuality is normal for heterosexuals or heterosexuality is normal for homosexuals. On the contrary, the fact is homosexuality is abnormal for heterosexuals and heterosexuality is abnormal for homosexuals. Can you live with that? If not, what is your problem?

“Look in the west,….” – a

While some parts of the west have legalized same-sex marriage, PM Lee had already made a clear stand that this concept is not acceptable in our society at current. PM also said before it is better to let the situation evolve gradually while observing the impact of how it is worked out in other countries. So, are you worried that our govt will one day follow some parts of the west to legalize same-sex marriage?

In some part of the west, trading and taking drugs are legal but it can be death penalty in Singapore depending on the drug quantity. Isn’t it clear that we are not following everything happening in the west?

Please tell me if you are also equally worried that drug traffickers and addicts will one day exert undue influence on our govt to legalize the trading and taking of drugs.

If your answer is yes, it shows you have little or no confidence in our govt’s or, more specifically, the PAP’s ability to withstand the tide of negative influences from the west. If this is the case, I can only suggest that you should quickly form your own political party to challenge the PAP in the coming election, raise this issue as an election topic for open debate and put up any evidence you have on their weaknesses in protecting your group’s interest. If you have no political experience, I suggest you can approach those who share your concern and are already in politic to join you. You can easily know some of them from their speeches in the parliament. If luck is on your side, you may even get a large number of followers there. Only by taking over control of the govt, your group can put in whatever suitable draconian counter-measures to prevent this impending negative tide from reaching our shore. Do you agree?

If your answer is no, I’m afraid to tell you that you have been diagnosed to be suffering from homophobia. But have little fear as this is considerably a much less severe consequence for you than needing to start a new political party. In this case, you only need to find a good psychiatrist to cure the illness in your mind. I guess it will still burn a hole albeit a small one in your pocket.

This whole thing is ... on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 10:56 am

This whole thing has gotten so meanderingly diverse and opinionated with ‘opulent” critics not filled with indepth knowledge, proper understanding, knowing, humilty and wisdom.

Solo Bear on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 1:30 pm

infp
>> et’s just assume gays have become monogamous. and statistics shows that there is no unnaturally high incidence of stds among gays. let’s even stretch it to the furthest and say medical science have become so good that stds are no longer a concern.
would you then be alright with them or anyone saying anal sex is natural?
>>

Please note that when I say anal sex is unnatural it is because it truly is unnatural.

Nature, the ultimate arbitrator in this homo sex case, has said that anus is meant for pooping.

Nature, the ultimate arbitrator, has said if you want to reproduce, you enter vagina.

Nature has spoken and said entering anus is UNNATURAL.

Until the anus evolves into a reproductive organ like the vagina, anal sex is UNNATURAL.

What gays do is besides the point.

So your question – “would you then be alright with them or anyone saying anal sex is natural?” – is a non-starter.

It would NEVER happen. Anal sex is UNNATURAL. Period.

natural function on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 1:58 pm

It can be said it is an unnatural thought to think anal sex is not unnatural.

It can be said those who live and let live have been naturally accommodating.

reader on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 3:17 pm

Hi Solo Bear (1:30pm):

I find the Nature arguments rather interesting. How are you so sure that that your PERCEPTIONS of Nature are really Nature itself?

You said Nature meant the anus to only be for pooping. Why then didn’t Nature make the anus a one-way valve so that only poop can come out and nothing can go in? In fact, why did Nature even make it pleasurable for things to go in?

You said that the anus cannot help in reproduction and thus there should be no anal sex. What makes you so sure that Nature meant sex only for reproduction? Couldn’t sex be for pleasure too?

If Nature meant sex only for reproduction, why is sex pleasurable? Why are women able to derive enjoyment from sex everyday when they only ovulate for a few days a month? Why do old people still derive enjoyment from sex even though they are no longer fertile?

Rebutt my arguments, solo, or admit you do not know Nature as well as you think.

Solo Bear on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 6:27 pm

reader
>>You said Nature meant the anus to only be for pooping.
>>

Please do not put words into my mouth. I said anus is meant for pooping. It is YOU who said that anus is ONLY for pooping.

Of course anus is considered an erogenous zone – but so are many OTHER places. However, while the anus is considered erogenous zone, the RECTUM is not. Any penetration of anus into the rectum causes pain, rather than pleasure. Of course, some people like pain during sex – making it a fetish, rather than natural.

If you want anal sex to be considered a fetish, that is OK with me. Just don’t consider it natural.

>>What makes you so sure that Nature meant sex only for reproduction? Couldn’t sex be for pleasure too?
>>

Again, did I say that sex is only for reproduction? Sex is also for bonding between couples. That’s why women find sex enjoyable even during non fertile days.

Face it. Anal sex is UNNATURAL – whether for reproduction or pleasure. There are hardly any pleasure nerves in the rectum.

Imustbestupid on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 12:06 am

Another classic piece of rubbish by solo bear.

Apart from being a source of misinformation (I wonder where he got the idea that “any penetration of anus into the rectum causes pain, rather than pleasure”. Just ask any doctor that has performed prostate examinations.), he’s arguments are so bad that it’s actually hilarious.

First of all, he thinks that he’s the spokesperson of Nature.

And yet, he’s unaware of the hundreds of species of animals that display homosexaul behaviour. He’s unaware that animals sheep have homosexual sex.

According to dictionary.com, the defination of natural is “existing in or formed by nature”.

Sheep must be creatures of imagination, in the same class as unicorns, in solo bear’s world. Either that or anal sex between sheep is unnatural, which is basically tautalogy.

Furthermore, he states that “Please do not put words into my mouth. I said anus is meant for pooping. It is YOU who said that anus is ONLY for pooping.”, but conveniently forgets to mention what else is the anus meant for.

a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 12:21 am

supporter of honest people (6th Jun 2009 9:17 am)

Your definition of “normal” is too subjective. The natural extension is: anything goes. Anything of the person is normal to the person involved. Anything.

I’m coming from another approach. Our species, homo sapiens, reproduce sexually. This statement is detached, objective, devoid of any values and judgements. It’s a basic scientific observation.

Homosexuality makes reproduction impossible, so it’s abnormal. Though abnormal, homosexuality, if in private and doesn’t affect anyone else, is ok to the society at large.

As for my confidence in the government, does it matter? And as for me being homophobic, I’m curious. Did I say they must be put through some bootcamp? I’m just pointing out a basic scientific fact. A psychiatrist for saying what I did??

I believe homosexuals also know themselves the limitations of their condition. It’s only those liberal activists who are misguided by the strange ideas from the west. I believe the materials used by Aware is following the lines prescribed by the west.

a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 2:04 am

Imustbestupid (7th Jun 2009 12:06 am),

I wish to correct another misconception. What’s the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts? A homosexual can only feel love for another same-sex. On the other hand, a heterosexual can also engage in the acts.

So, when people quote studies that say animals also show homosexual behaviors, does it mean the animals are homosexual? That is, they love a same-sex. I think animals that “love” another or pair for life out of “love” are few and far. So, I believe the studies show homosexual acts.

Lets imagine a alpha he-lion with his pride of she-lions and young he-lions. The alpha-he may simply engage in sodomy as a show of domination, rather than as a homosexual. If the alpha-he is homosexual, shouldn’t he have a pride of he-lions??

If any he-lion is homosexual, then he won’t survive long. He won’t lead a pride, and he won’t father any cubs. It’s a serious limitation.

a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 2:19 am

Imustbestupid (7th Jun 2009 12:06 am),

As for woolly sheeps, the same limitations apply. If a sheep is homosexual, he won’t have any offsprings. That’s the discount that comes with the condition. So, is the condition normal? Please note I’m saying homosexual as in “homosexuality” homosexual, not the “homosexual-act” homosexual.

Anyway, just a curious thought, I wonder what animals exhibit romantic love like humans do, rather than being driven by sexual instincts to mate.

reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 2:49 am

Dear Solo Bear,

Interesting counter arguments.

“I said anus is meant for pooping. It is YOU who said that
anus is ONLY for pooping.”

- I’m glad you say that Nature meant for the anus to be not ONLY for pooping, but for other uses too. In your very next sentence, you say the anus is an erogenous zone, implying that Nature meant for the anus to be able to be involved in sexual activity.

- You then say that penetration into the rectum causes pain. As what Imustbestupid said, where did this statement come from? Is it from personal experience? Or is it from controlled scientific studies or statistical sampling? Please provide evidence for this claim.

“Sex is also for bonding between couples.”

- I’m glad you say that Nature meant sex to be not ONLY for reproduction. It is also meant for bonding between couples. So why can’t couples use anal sex for bonding?

- Because it’s unnatural? And it is unnatural because it is the anus? And using the anus is unnatural because only the vagina should be used? And only the vagina should be used because…? I am trying to guess what possible reasons you can give but they lead to nowhere. Care to help me out?

“Face it. Anal sex is UNNATURAL – whether for reproduction or pleasure. There are hardly any pleasure nerves in the rectum.”

- I am not a doctor and I am unsure if there are pleasure nerves in the rectum. Can you please provide evidence before making such claims?

- What I do know is that gays and some heterosexual couples practice anal sex and they DO derive pleasure from it. In fact, many species of animals practice anal sex occasionally in WILDLIFE. If Nature did not mean for anal sex to exist for pleasure, then why didn’t Nature make it so painful that nobody or animal would attempt it?

“Please note that when I say anal sex is unnatural it is because it truly is unnatural.
Nature, the ultimate arbitrator in this homo sex case, has said that anus is meant for pooping.
Nature, the ultimate arbitrator, has said if you want to reproduce, you enter vagina.
Nature has spoken and said entering anus is UNNATURAL.
Until the anus evolves into a reproductive organ like the vagina, anal sex is UNNATURAL.” (1:30pm)

- In your previous conclusion that anal sex is unnatural, the basis of your arguments are that the anus is meant for pooping and that anal sex does not allow reproduction.

- Since you have conceded that the anus is not ONLY meant for pooping, and that sex need not JUST be for reproduction, how else are you going to justify that Nature has spoken against anal sex? Please elaborate on your arguments again exactly why anal sex must be un-”natural”.

- And do provide evidence for your 2 claims and rebut all my arguments above too. Thank you.

reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 3:41 am

Dear a,

Interesting thoughts you have. I totally agree with you that most animals probably only exhibit bisexual behavior. I am also unsure if there is strong evidence of widespread pure homosexuality in animals. However, accepting that animals commonly exhibit bisexual behavior would at least mean bisexuality in humans is “natural” too.

You mention mating, bringing up the concept of evolution. This really got me thinking. My thoughts are that just because pure homosexuality appears to be evolutionarily maladaptive, is not good enough reason for us to conclude that homosexuality lacks a biological/genetic component.

Firstly, some traits appear maladaptive at first, but may be useful in hidden ways. Africans are genetically at greater risk of suffering from sickle-cell anemia (a fatal disease), but the same genetic traits grant them greater resistance to malaria. Thus homosexuality may be useful for us in ways we do not realize.

A possible benefit is that homosexuals tend to be more artistic and creative. In this way, homosexuality may be bad for the individual, but beneficial for the species. This may help explain why evolution allows for homosexuality.

Secondly, lots of examples exist in Nature of biological “disorders” surviving in a population. Sickle cell anemia is fatal, but somehow it does not die out. A possible explanation is that “disorders” that reliably affect only a minority of the population is unable to drive the population and thus itself extinct.

Thirdly, homosexuality may be due to a complex interaction of many genes. And the environment. Some people argue that humans actually exhibit a continuum of behavior from heterosexuality on one end to bisexuality in the middle to homosexuality at the other end.

It is possible that parents with “bisexual genes” can give birth to both a homosexual kid (who will then die out) and a “normal” kid. The “normal” kid may contain some bisexual genes (to be passed on) and this will explain why homosexuality exists.

Evolution is a mysterious thing and I guess nobody can ever truly understand its inner workings. But I hope you are not a Christian because Christianity does not accept evolution, and all this discussion would be for nought.

reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 4:07 am

And once again, I wish to clear up some definitions for both groups.

Normal – Normal is the adjective of the word “normality”. Anything normal simply means it’s the average. Anything abnormal simply means it is statistically low in likelihood. Thus left-handedness and extremely high IQ is abnormal.

However, most laymen use the term abnormal to mean “bad” and normal to mean “not bad”. Thus AWARE’s choice of the word “normal”, because it wishes to remove the negative connotations and guilt associated with homosexuality. Personally, I feel they should have used a better choice of word as they are confusing people with the term “normal”.

We must always remember that there are 2 ways to define “normal/abnormal” and be very clear in defining how we are using them.

Natural – The root word is nature, and natural refers to things that are in accordance with or determined by nature. Stuff with a biological/genetic component are considered natural. Unnatural would refer to social or man-made creations.

Again, laymen like to use natural to mean “right” and unnatural to mean “perverse”. This confusion of definition has created a lot of trouble.

With regards to Nature, no side can conclusively show that homosexuality is natural or unnatural. But most medical and scientific journals would agree the evidence is tilted in favor of homosexuality having a biological component. I shall not go into detail of all these evidence.

Morals – Morals are codes of conduct defined by society, philosophy, religion or individual conscience.

Thus do note that moral values do change with time and differ from place to place. For example, it is considered immoral for women to enjoy equal rights with men in the past, and in Afghanistan now, it is considered immoral for women to expose anything beyond their eyes.

In other words, morals are more of like social conventions, instead of strict “rights” and “wrongs”. Instead of saying homosexuality is immoral, it is clearer and more appropriate to argue that homosexuality is socially unacceptable.

But of course, society changes, so it is always impossible to measure “social conventions”, particularly for controversial topics.

In conclusion, I hope both camps will remember to be clear in their definitions of the 3 words. All debates are useless if any camp does not realize they are using different definitions in the first place.

Solo Bear on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 8:05 am

imustbestupid
>>Apart from being a source of misinformation (I wonder where he got the idea that “any penetration of anus into the rectum causes pain, rather than pleasure”. Just ask any doctor that has performed prostate examinations.), he’s arguments are so bad that it’s actually hilarious.
>>

Why don’t you ask the gays themselves? Are there really pleasure nerves up their rectums, or do they derive pleasure of the anal penetration because of the pain? That would settle it once and for all, wouldn’t it?

>> First of all, he thinks that he’s the spokesperson of Nature.
>>

Nope, it is GAYS who proclaim that when they say anal sex is natural. Don’t shirk that responsibility that you claim to be nature’s spokesman.

>>And yet, he’s unaware of the hundreds of species of animals that display homosexaul behaviour. He’s unaware that animals sheep have homosexual sex.
According to dictionary.com, the defination of natural is “existing in or formed by nature”.
>>

I am FULLY aware that animals do that. What gays are unaware is that animals do many things humans do – like infanticide and cannibalism. Want to say that those are natural too?

You see, gays’ arguments are so warped it makes no sense.

Why don’t gays just admit that anal sex is unnatural but they want to engage in it anyway? Let me help you do it. You see, putting on clothes is unnatural. But I like to put on clothes in spite it is unnatural.

See how easily it is done? Now why are gays so ill-confident they can’t say it for anal sex?

Solo Bear on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 9:27 am

Correction,

Earlier I posted –
“I am FULLY aware that animals do that. What gays are unaware is that animals do many things humans do – like infanticide and cannibalism. Want to say that those are natural too?”

Should be -
“I am FULLY aware that animals do that. What gays are unaware is that animals do many things humans **DON’T DO** – like infanticide and cannibalism. Want to say that those are natural too?”

Imustbestupid on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 9:53 am

You are obviously quite misguided. A homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, and not someone who merely loves someone of the same sex. The definitive test of homosexuality is to see if a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex by means of attaching a probe to his penis if he is male or by using fMRI to see if specific areas of his/her brain light up. I mean if i love my dad, my uncles or my brothers, does it mean i’m a gay?

So when i quote animal studies like those of sheep, i believe that they usually do not fall in love. A ram typically has 40-50 ewes all to himself during a breeding season and plays no part in rearing the lambs nor does he engage in any behaviour that has a sembelance of what we call love.

“Lets imagine a alpha he-lion with his pride of she-lions and young he-lions. The alpha-he may simply engage in sodomy as a show of domination, rather than as a homosexual. If the alpha-he is homosexual, shouldn’t he have a pride of he-lions??”

Similarly your example of lions is dodgy as well. That a homosexual lion does not have a pride of he-lions may just simply mean that the rest of lions do not express female behaviour. It doesn’t mean that that lion is not sexually interest in other lions.

Finally, there’s a difference between natural and normal. The former just means that something is found in nature as opposed to artificial. I merely pointed out that homosexuality existed in nature. Homosexuality may arguably be considered abnormal. Personally, I just find it rude to call homosexuals abnormal and hence refrain from doing so.

fearandignorance on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 10:55 am

homosexuality in animals is used to dispute the statement that homosexuality is unnatural put forth by the anti-gay camp if “unnatural” means “not found in nature”.
It does not condone the act since there obviously are other considerations.
Otherwise, we will all be walking around naked since animals don’t wear clothing.

Thus the anti-gay camp has to put forth more convincing arguments to support why homosexuality is wrong, instead of harping on the weak point that homosexuality is unnatural.

Solo Bear on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 11:53 am

fear,
>> homosexuality in animals is used to dispute the statement that homosexuality is unnatural put forth by the anti-gay camp if “unnatural” means “not found in nature”.
>>

Who says “unnatural” means not found in nature? Unnatural means that nature did not design it to be such.

>>It does not condone the act since there obviously are other considerations.
>>

But anal sex has other considerations – the rupturing of rectal blood vessels, the permanent damage it causes, not to mention the high rate of HIV transfer. Surely that is good enough for society to consider this practice as odious if you want to argue?

>>Otherwise, we will all be walking around naked since animals don’t wear clothing.
>>

If you want to do it, be my guest. I choose to be unnatural and wear clothes. Any objection?

I have no objection to you having anal sex. Just don’t say it is natural because it is not.

>>Thus the anti-gay camp has to put forth more convincing arguments to support why homosexuality is wrong, instead of harping on the weak point that homosexuality is unnatural.
>>

The point now is not whether it is wrong. The point is whether is it natural. Obviously not.

What’s wrong with gays saying in spite of it being unnatural they want to do it?

I am not ashamed to say wearing clothes is unnatural and I want to do it.

Why are gays ashamed to admit anal sex is unnatural and they want to do it?

You Are So Endearing "reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 4:07 am "! on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 12:04 pm

Thank you so much for your most endearing waya of enlightening our civil society. Hopefully and I’m sure even the pap ministers & mps too. Including the oppo as well.

Generally you’re so very absolutely right that, “Again, laymen like to use natural to mean “right” and unnatural to mean “perverse”. This confusion of definition has created a lot of trouble.”.

We must always substantiate to support our opinions & comments by NOT just opposing or challenging for these things sake. The writing of people tells clearly the sought of mind they have. Meaning with indepth and proper understanding of the “TOs & FROs” and the PROs & CONs” of any matter or issues.

Like when one poses more than a slant or quote like religious texts to debunk a believe, a Faith, it is actually AN INSULT to those with that Faith! Daily, many things we do by “FAITH” in crossing the roads, eating outside food (Geylang Serai reclls!), fly in an aeroplane, take Specialist Docs’ medications, et cetera.

So please DEFINE DEFINE DEFINE the basic of your Words of Reference and Context CLEARLY AND ABSOLUTELY to leave little room for guessing. A FIRM FOUNDATON is the FOOTSTOOL of anything TAHT STANDS On IT yah! Thanks a million dear “reader” as YOU ARE MOST COHRENT! BRAVO Wise One. We’ll endeavour to follow you.

Sincerely,
Ron

Imustbestupid on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 12:30 pm

Sigh….

Solo bear: Nature, the ultimate arbitrator in this homo sex case, has said that anus is meant for pooping.

Nature, the ultimate arbitrator, has said if you want to reproduce, you enter vagina.

Nature has spoken and said entering anus is UNNATURAL.

Me : Solo bear thinks that he’s the spokesman for Nature

Solo Bear : Nope, it is GAYS who proclaim that when they say anal sex is natural. Don’t shirk that responsibility that you claim to be nature’s spokesman.

Me: ???????

“I am FULLY aware that animals do that. What gays are unaware is that animals do many things humans do – like infanticide and cannibalism. Want to say that those are natural too?”

But infanticide and cannibalism are natural as evident from behaviour in lions (they kill cubs when taking over a pride) and in chickens.

You really need to take note of the definition of words that you use.

Otherwise it’s hard to engage you in a debate when u keep making senseless statements.

Tip: Natural does not equal good. Lots of natural herbal remedies out there on the market are utterly useless and may even be poisonous. On the flip side, much of the unnatural drugs that we use in medicine have saved countless of lives

Sniper on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 1:09 pm

So we have gone from the focus of the article posted to semantic nitpicking of the homosexuality natural/unnatural debate. I don’t have time to read through every comment posted, but a quick search reveals that it is Solo Bear who first began posting about gay militants and thus provoking the same tired old debate all over again.

Rather than contribute to the sidetracking any further, I wonder why…

Solo Bear on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 1:50 pm

imustbestupid
>> Tip: Natural does not equal good. Lots of natural herbal remedies out there on the market are utterly useless and may even be poisonous. On the flip side, much of the unnatural drugs that we use in medicine have saved countless of lives
>>

Where for once did I say that natural is good? AIDs is natural but it ain’t good!

It is gays who don’t have the guts to admit that anal sex is unnatural and it is gays who think that natural always means good, while unnatural always means bad.

That’s why it is so hard for them to swallow the fact that anal sex is unnatural.

I have no quarrel with gays if they want anal sex. But I have a lot of issue with gays if they try to teach children anal sex is natural.

So please be brave and admit that anal is unnatural, and in spite of it being unnatural, you CHOOSE to do it.

What is wrong with saying that?

reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 1:56 pm

Hi Solo Bear:

Why do you have time to answer others but aren’t replying to my questions? Are you still formulating your arguments or do you concede you do not know Nature that well? I repeat, my questions are:

1. Where is your evidence that penetration into the rectum is painful? The onus is on you to provide the evidence since you are the one making the claim.

2. Where is your evidence that there are hardly any pleasure nerves in the rectum?

3. Why can’t couples use anal sex for bonding?

4. If Nature did not mean for anal sex to exist, then why didn’t Nature make it so painful that nobody or animal would attempt it? Or create physical barriers like a one-way valve (which do exist in our heart and veins)?

5. And most importantly, what are your arguments for asserting that anal sex is not natural?

Do note that all instances of my use of “natural” refer to “existing in or created by Nature”. If you use “unnatural” to mean it’s “perverse and wrong”, then please be clear so we do not argue about different things.

reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 2:04 pm

“Who says “unnatural” means not found in nature? Unnatural means that nature did not design it to be such.”

So now Solo Bear has moved from making pseudo-rational arguments to creating your own definitions.

Go check any dictionary or wikipedia for definitions. I repeat, “natural” means “in accordance with or created by Nature”. Unnatural will mean the direct opposite of that.

If Nature did not design certain things to be such, why will these things be found by themselves in nature then?

Please stick to logic and rationality. Thank you.

Desoh87 on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 3:34 pm

About anal sex and homosexuality, certain animals do practice such acts of bonding. Like Dolphins, Killer Whales, Bonobo etc.

a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 3:59 pm

Reader,

If this can sooth some ruffled feathers, I’m a freethinker. But I do hope there’s more than just our transient flesh, so I’m still up for grabs.

As for evolution, I like your 3 points. But apart from genetics, there are also learned social traits. The animals have their hierarchy, harems, and in-family strifes/homicides. Humans have our social structure, plus culture and laws. We must’ve arrived at complementary monogamy because of certain benefits.

For words and connotations, what can we do? I didn’t start using normal or natural here. Maybe we can try this: A+B > A+A. Because A+B can be something else, but A+A is just 2A. But I think this’s still contentious to some.

(Imustbestupid, 7th Jun 2009 9:53 am),

I’m referring to romantic love, not paternal or fraternal or kinship or the rest. Maybe I’m unromantic or something, but probably the basis of romantic love stems from the penis or the clitoris. It’s just more highly developed and more focused through our brain, unlike the unbridled passions of animals. Romantics and prudes, sorry about that.

As I said, for lack of better word, how can say it without being rude? Can I say it’s a condition with limitations / discounts? I find that accurate. Anyway, if nobody says it’s normal, nobody will counter it’s abnormal.

supporter of honest people on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 4:07 pm

To ‘a’,

The definition of ‘normal’ given by reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 4:07 am is another meaning which is average based on statistic. Here are some definitions from different dictionaries that match my intended definition of ‘normal’ and the keyword is ‘conforming’ and it is not subjective. I believe Aware uses ‘normal’ with the same intention as myself.

i. Conforming to a standard; regular, usual, typical. (Oxford Dictionary)
ii. Usual and ordinary, in accordance with what people expect. (Collins Dictionary)
iii. Conforming to a type, standard, regular pattern. (Merriam-Webster)

Your statement that “Anything of the person is normal to the person involved” is not true. I give you an example – a person who digs his nose with toes instead of fingers is not normal unless that person has lost both arms. Do you agree?

On the sexuality topic, I understand now that you are talking about reproduction while I’m talking about human behaviour.

For me, “Homosexuals are attracted to their own sex group because of their sexuality, so homosexuality is normal for homosexuals”. Do you have any issue with this statement?

For you, “Homosexuality makes reproduction impossible, so it’s abnormal”

I believe many people here have issues with this statement that need your clarification.

As brought up by Eterna2, there are many other reasons for making reproduction impossible, like sterilized couple and celibacy. I have reproduced your reply to Eterna2 and my questions below.

“Celibacy is a choice by normal people who choose to practise their faith in their own lives. It’s quite different for sterile people or those with fertility problem. They themselves can accept it’s an abnormal condition humbly or perhaps with some grief. They don’t go around arguing it’s absolutely normal.” – a

I think you didn’t answer clearly whether celibacy is normal or not, but your reply seem to imply that sterile people or those with fertility problem are abnormal. To clarify this ambiguity, I have rephrased and split into two questions.

Question 1a – Are people who practice celibacy normal or abnormal to you? If abnormal, why?

Question 1b – Are sterile people or those with fertility problem normal or abnormal to you? If abnormal, why?

Then you proceed to say that “They don’t go around arguing it’s absolutely normal … people try to twist this condition into something normal, and they argue that the whole society should see the same”.

It seems to me now the contention point you have with homosexuals is you believe it is wrong for them to go around telling people that homosexuality is normal. So, I said earlier in my previous comment that “There is no one arguing here that homosexuality is normal for heterosexuals or heterosexuality is normal for homosexuals. On the contrary, the fact is homosexuality is abnormal for heterosexuals and heterosexuality is abnormal for homosexuals.”

Question 2a – Do you agree that homosexuality is normal for homosexuals just as heterosexuality is normal for heterosexuals?

Question 2b – If you answer to (2a) is yes, why can’t the whole society see it is as normal when the correct term is applied to each individual’s sexuality?

Question 2c – If you answer to (2a) is no, can you explain why?

I will like to clarify that your confidence in the govt is important because you have brought in the discussion the practice of same sex marriage in the west which you deem as undesirable to support your point on an unverified action of the local homosexual community. To me, only homophobic people like to jump the gun and scaremongering everyone that such practice is going to happen here even when everyone, including the homosexual community, knows that our govt has a clear position on same-sex marriage while adopting a wait-and –see attitude.

Furthermore, ‘same-sex marriage’ is a legal issue decided only at the govt level, similar to drug taking and drug trading, which led me to suggest starting a new political party if you lack confidence in the govt’s ability to withstand any negative encroachment from the west.

Question 3a – Are you satisfied or still confused on the question to your confidence in the govt after my clarification above?

Question 3b – Do you think ‘same sex marriage’ will happen here any time soon?

I’m sorry to post so many questions to you as you seem to be the few who held different views from me but yet can engage in some intellectual discussion on this topic which I’m as curious as you. I hope you will answer these questions. Thanks.

reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 5:01 pm

Hi a,

I apologize if I sounded too confrontational because I really wasn’t ruffled at all.

I agree with you that learned social traits that are beneficial can be and are passed down. Not sure how this relates to evolution though, is there a field called “social evolution”?

As for A+B>A+A, I am really sorry but you have lost me here. If there are any points you wish to discuss further with me, do clarify, for it has been a pleasure discussing with you.

To support of honest people (4:07pm):

I feel you have to be more specific in your definition of “normal”. “Conforming” is very similar to “average”, as anything that conforms to the majority is by nature average.

I believe you specifically mean to say “conforming to the HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION”. Most other people would define normal as “conforming to the GENERAL POPULATION”. Thus to many people, homosexuals are abnormal because they behave very differently from the general population. In this definition, there is nothing wrong with the usage.

I believe the AWARE CSE should be more careful in using words like “normal” and “natural”, as very different definitions are possible and they lead to very different connotations.

a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 7:42 pm

supporter of honest people (7th Jun 2009 4:07 pm),

That’s a mouthful.. your questions seem more to force my hand and wrest some vulnerable answers to win a case, like a literary debate. But anyway..

1a. They are normal biologically, but the lifestyle is far from normal. I dare say it’s “abnormal” but more in the sense of supra-normal. They heed a calling (you do mean religious celibacy, don’t you?) to serve their faith. That requires steely discipline and resolve.

It’s really a higher plane than our fleshy sexuality. But does it serve any purpose? I don’t know, but they believe it does. Anyway, the main thing is: whether I call them normal or not, it has no bearing on my understanding of homosexuality.

1b. This one’s easier. They are abnormal. They themselves know it’s a debilitating condition. So, we can say it’s abnormal, unless we want to call debilitating conditions normal.

2a. The problem here is: I can say conjoined twins, Downs syndrome, cleft lips, colour-blind, extra digits, and so on and so forth and etc and .. are all normal to the people affected. Does that sound right? Well, yes in a way.. On the other hand, there’s a nagging feeling it’s very strange to say yes.

Anyway, you may not concur with my list. Probably, you find these conditions incapacitating, and homosexuality don’t belong in there. Then, you’ll need to convince me (and the rest of the logical thinking people out there) that homosexuality presents no limitations, that the affected’s can be like all homo sapiens in all the natural aspects by themselves. I don’t think that’s an easy task.

2b. As above, if I’m to say it’s normal, where does it end? What then is abnormal out there? Basically, we are stumped: we can’t say anything is abnormal. I think the way to avoid this is an external objective reference beyond the individuals.

2c. Did I answer yes or no? I’m confused myself.. You expect me to say yes. But if I did, the argument will be chasing its own tail in circles.

If I said no, then I’m not logical, because the sensation of homosexuality IS normal to the affected individual, just as my lists of other conditions. The affected individuals don’t know what it feels otherwise.

So, the solution: it’s normal to the individual, but abnormal in a homo sapien.

3a & 3b. Even in the west, it’s not as smooth-sailing. So, I don’t think it’ll come.

But it does bother me that we are hearing this in Singapore. Look at Aware, it has brought in these liberal ideals from the west. And the target is the young. Instill a slant in the thinking of the new generations, and you’ll have the last say in future.

I don’t contest that we need to show humanistic concerns to those with the condition. I’m quite warm-blooded as you. But I don’t agree with how some sanitise homosexuality and elevate it to be a normal way of life. If anything, acceptance can be on the basis of compassion, not “it’s a normal way of life”. It’s an exception, not the norm, and the basis is compassion.

I don’t have a question, just a statement I’d like to repeat. Homo sapiens reproduce sexually, and homosexuality is an abnormal condition that makes it impossible to achieve reproduction.

a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 8:36 pm

reader (7th Jun 2009 5:01 pm),

No problem, I’m just afraid some will suspect I’m a Christian fundie.

To clarify A+B>A+A, “A” and “B” each represent one of the 2 sexes. It’s just my quirky way of saying homosexuality has a deficiency compared to heterosexuality. I thought these symbols are less emotive than language.

Anyway, I like the discussion. The pleasure is mine!

And now Dear "reader" you have "a" too in support! on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 1:02 am

Despite “reader’s and “a’s” level-headed efforts, the obvious “heady” one(s) persist to define in their ‘expert’ ways.

Perhaps “Solo Bear” being so enlightened may wish to help us know “Why is BEAUTY Beautifully?”. I’ve asked this in another blog with no resultant respond.

It is not a challenge but a case for “Enlightenment” you see. For the orthodox is never always true just because the majority is/are/says/agrees/champions its. Isn’t THAT Just following the crowds and also a numbers game.

Thus how legitimate and FULL-PROOF true can this be? If one can’t understand this, then what is the credibility of one’s ‘forensic’ replies w/o basis for the definations. As even definations’ basis MUST BE clearly stated.

If we here in WP are seen to be no better than those pap an det cetera whom we are contesting their “Wisdom”, THAN have WE DONE a DISSERVICE and Discredit to selves. And thus make oursleves a target for foolishness or no better substance in ‘their’ return ’shots’ else about Singaporeans’ “low-mentally”? Or STILL needs time to learn! SO, pap is STIL TOPS in Compare! Shame on us if we DEMEAN US and WP this way Solo Bear? I may sound combative in compare to “reader” and “a’. But I DO meant well and saw that gentlemenly ways can’t ‘cut-through diamonds’!

infp on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 6:38 am

solo bear,

then, let’s just tell the students ‘ well there’s this thing called anal sex, which is practiced mainly by the gays. some heterosexuals practice it too. the thing is some people enjoy it and some people don’t. some people think it’s natural and some people think it’s not. so, is it natural or unnatural? well, let’s discuss…’

(and all the while, the teacher will maintain neutrality cuz she knows her job is not to shove truths but to facilitate healthy discussion. )

would that be okay for you?

Imustbestupid on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 9:08 am

Hi a,

In response to your statement “I don’t have a question, just a statement I’d like to repeat. Homo sapiens reproduce sexually, and homosexuality is an abnormal condition that makes it impossible to achieve reproduction.”, I would think that it is possible for homosexuals to reproduce. Provided that they do not have any fertility problems, all a gay needs to do is to copulate with a fertile female and all a lesbian needs to do is to copulate with a fertile male.

You might argue that homosexuals have a peference for member of the same sex and that leads to a reduction of reproductive success.

However, consider this. Many people have preference for certain activities that may lead to a reduced chance of reproductive success. For example, some engage in risky activities such as speed racing, bungee jumping, base jumping etc. These people do it for the thrill, the adrenaline rush. Are they abnormal?

How about career minded women who opt to marry late? Are they abnormal as fertility decreases with age?

The line dividing normal and abnormal is not so clear anymore isn’t it?.

supporter of honest people on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 9:11 am

To reader,

Yes, my intended definition of ‘normal’ may be used for different meanings. You may have been confused by the meanings because of the distortions made by the dishonest people. To me, I’m very clear of which meaning of ‘normal’ to be used all along.

To know which definition or meaning is correct, it is basic knowledge that we need to understand the context where the term is being applied or used. In this case, it is the Aware’s CSE trainer manual which contains the additional instructions and teaching material deem too sensitive and complicated to be given to the students.

Under this context, it becomes very clear that the definition “conforming to the HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION” is correct and not the definition “conforming to the GENERAL POPULATION”. Here is my explanation:

The CSE program is neutral which means it does not promote or condemn any sexuality. I have reproduced below the different scenarios when the definition of ‘homosexuality’ is touched on by the CSE instructor for easy reading.

Scenario 1 – In a classroom with a mix of homosexual students and heterosexual students, the CSE instructors will only teach the class that homosexuality is ‘neutral’, and this definition is also given in the student handout. Under this scenario, the instructor will NEVER teach the whole class that “homosexuality is natural and normal” because he or she has to maintain neutrality to the different sexuality groups.
Scenario 2 – If heterosexual students happen to approach the CSE instructor to question about their sexuality, they will be told that heterosexuality is natural and perfectly normal. The instructor will not promote or condemn homosexuality to these students.
Scenario 3 – If homosexual students happen to approach the CSE instructor to question about their sexuality, they will also be told that homosexuality is natural and perfectly normal. If the homosexual students ask about heterosexuality, the instructor can say heterosexuality may seem unnatural for a homosexual, the causes of homosexuality/ heterosexuality is unknown, but some scientific studies show people are born like this.
The CSE manual contains special instructions to help the instructors to correctly handle Scenario 2 & 3 in a neutral way and these instructions are not included in the student handout because they can only be applicable to specific sexuality group.

The whole Aware fracas started just because some dishonest people stole the confidential CSE manual, revealed it to the public and distorted the facts on how the special instruction for homosexual students are being taught to the heterosexual students. The allegations are all untrue as explained.

Isn’t it very clear now the correct ‘normal’ definition that can be applied under this context is “conforming to the HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION”?

supporter of honest people on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 10:12 am

To ‘a’,

Thanks for your reply. Your answers will help me to understand your stand better – nothing else to worry about.

You do seem like a confused person or, possibly, a person out to confuse someone like me.

Your answer to (1a) may not have any bearing on your understanding of homosexuality, but it has strong bearing on your statement that “Homosexuality makes reproduction impossible, so it’s abnormal”.

I’m afraid we may have to try that question again because you have totally skipped mentioning the non-reproduction of celibates and whether it is normal or abnormal to you. Yes, it’s probably a difficult question because it is not a debilitating condition, and this is a more similar case to the homosexuals. For this reason, it is important to know your answer on the celibates. I’m just helping you to understand your own position on homosexuality better if you can answer this question truthfully.

Your answer to (1b) does shed some light that you will view anyone who is not able to reproduce anymore as abnormal. I find this view discriminating but everyone is entitled to their own views.

You have not answered to (2a) in my opinion. I do think your list is a bit far-fetched in linking physical deformities and congenital disorders to homosexuality. However, your answer does show your tendency to see homosexuality as some kind of sickness or disease. Whether all logical thinking people will share this tendency is quite subjective to me.

“Then, you’ll need to convince me … that homosexuality presents no limitations, that the affected’s can be like all homo sapiens in all the natural aspects by themselves.” – a

This is quite easy to prove. Ted Haggard is a living example who is married and has five children and still he solicited prostitute Mike Jones for homosexual sex. I also read that he works as an insurance sale agent now. Is this good enough to convince you?

You have also not answered to (2b) and (2c) in my opinion.

For (2b), to be fair to me, I did give an example to you on what is considered as abnormal in my previous comment – a person who digs his nose with toes instead of fingers is not normal unless that person has lost both arms.

If you had said it’s normal for the whole society to see it is as normal when the correct term is applied to each individual’s sexuality, it ends there. However, your later statement on “it’s normal to the individual, but abnormal in a homo sapien” has already given away your answer for this question.

Since your answer is it is not normal for the whole society to see it as normal when something right is applied correctly to the individual, you now have to explain and convince me (and all the logical thinking people here) why it is not normal? For example, the society here knows that digging one’s nose openly in the public is considered as an uncivilized act and it is a normal view of our civilized society. If you disagree with this statement and you want to tell people that it’s not normal for our civilized society to see digging nose publicly as an uncivilized act, then you have to give reasons to support your position. Is this guideline clear enough for you?

For (2c), I think you are the only one chasing yourself around in circles here. I’m glad that you know saying no is illogical here and admitted that you are a confused person.

I will accept your answer on (3a) & (3b) as you agreed to not bring in the ‘same-sex marriage’ topic into the homosexuality discussion. On the rest of your ‘caveat emptor’, please read my comment to ‘reader’ because you seem rather confused about whether you are being misled or you are misleading.

I accept your last statement as your own personal opinion.

You are rather wrong to say that you are as warm-blooded as me because I’m a hot-blooded supporter of honest people and you have actually much colder blood than me.

I have higher expectation for your answers, but I think this may be already your best effort. So, I still think I do have to thank you again for the reply.

a on Mon, 8th Jun 2009 7:21 pm

supporter of honest people (8th Jun 2009 10:12 am),

Does homosexuality require discipline and resolve? Is it a leap of faith, and tied to a higher calling? Is a practice belonging to an institutionalised monastic order spanning centuries? What role does this order serve in society?

Who’s Ted? Ted’s homosexual? Why is he married? True homosexuality or an indulgent homosexual act? But how can we tell? Is there something like “extent” or “degree” of homosexuality?

If infertility is a normal condition, why don’t the people just ignore it and go about their way with no care about it? Nonchalant, be cool, no bothers, no worries, life as usual.

If you feel better to say I am confused and cold-blooded, then I’d like to remind you that it brings nothing of value in the discussion. Unless this isn’t a discussion, in which case, I need to prioritise my time.

a on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 1:59 am

Imustbestupid (8th Jun 2009 9:08),

There’re many attributes and underlying reasons in various activities, so they draw different responses. If it’s normal, nobody will notice. If it’s private and non-intrusive, most won’t bother.

Now it seems the question here is why I say homosexuality is abnormal compared to all these other activities which also seemingly reduce or even eliminate reproductive chances. Well, there’re some differences among them. These other activities are acts of will with a certain purpose, and serve a function to the individual or society.

Homosexuality is a condition, not an act of choice (if I said it is, I think you’ll object), and it doesn’t serve a function. So, with these in mind, you’ll need to compare it to something similar. On the other hand, if you choose another condition that people won’t give any attention in real-life, then to me it seems very self-illusory.

Anyway, I’ve put the statement on the table in full view. It’s not coloured by my perceptions. It’s not tainted by my values. I didn’t come up with it. You can ask me anything under the sun, and I may be forced to say something with a precarious moral position. But you’ll need to realise that I had no part in that clinical statement. You are basically challenging how a certain thing is understood by people.

As an aside, I wouldn’t go up to a person affected by infertility and say it’s a normal thing. I don’t think it’d be taken well.

supporter of honest people on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 9:08 pm

To ‘a’,

I only reflected honestly what I understood from your answers to me. In all fairness, you did mention you are confused. I’ll be more than happy if someone can point out that I’m confused and tell me a reason. I’ll improve myself intellectually if the reason is true. I have an open mind on such matter.

On the statement about my hot-blooded support for honest people, I feel you may have read too much into it and over-reacted. I’m here to clear up the wrongful allegations thrown at Aware’s old guard by a group of dishonest people, and I’m pretty passionate about it. In comparison to you, I do not see you to be passionate as me in this aspect, that’s all to the meaning of this statement. In actual fact, you may have warmer blood than me in many other matters.

On the Aware saga, I believe you should be fairly clear by now that the old guard are innocent and honest people and there is nothing wrong with their CSE program if you have read my reply to ‘reader’. If you still disagree with me on this matter, please tell me what your reason is and I will like to discuss it further with you.

The false allegations by the dishonest people on Aware’s CSE program is one area that the record must be put straight to stop confused people from doing what you just did in one of your earlier comments on Aware bringing in liberal ideas from the west and targeting the young by instilling a slant in the thinking of these new generations. Do you agree that it is incorrect of you to make this unfounded allegation?

“Does homosexuality require discipline and resolve? Is it a leap of faith, and tied to a higher calling?” – a

Sexuality comes naturally to us when we reach puberty, and it doesn’t seem to me to require any discipline and resolve.

Homosexuality is not a religion and I do not see it as a conscious choice made by the individuals. Furthermore, I can never convince myself to be physically and emotionally attracted to another person with the same gender even if it is from a higher calling. The experiment on sexual love with a tree, suggested by ‘morris’, in another thread makes a lot of sense to me.

“Is a practice belonging to an institutionalised monastic order spanning centuries? What role does this order serve in society?” – a

I’ll like to see this question from a hypothetical angle. Will homosexuality be considered normal if the followers of an institutionalised monastic order spanning centuries require them to practice homosexuality? My answer is a definite no because it will be unnatural to force the heterosexual followers to practise homosexuality. What is your answer?

“Who’s Ted? Ted’s homosexual? Why is he married? True homosexuality or an indulgent homosexual act? But how can we tell? Is there something like “extent” or “degree” of homosexuality?” – a

Please don’t feign ignorance to not know how to search information on google in this information age if you haven’t heard of Ted Haggard yet. I despise such dishonest behavior very much. Anyway, I have attached the wikipedia link below for your perusal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

Can you clarify the difference between ‘true homosexuality’ and ‘an indulgent homosexual act’?

My understanding is heterosexuals will NEVER engage in any homosexual act with a person of the same gender, so both terms are related to homosexuals ONLY and there is no such thing as “extent” or “degree” of homosexuality. For example, if I see two same gender persons kissing lips together, I will know immediately they are homosexuals and I do not need to know what they do in their bedroom or in their life. Will you find it absurd if I ask you what degree of your heterosexuality is?

“If infertility is a normal condition, why don’t the people just ignore it and go about their way with no care about it? Nonchalant, be cool, no bothers, no worries, life as usual.” – a

This is exactly the same view I have on LGBTs. I don’t understand why you cannot see them in the same way as infertile couples and insist that homosexuals are abnormal just because their relationship cannot reproduce naturally.

Science has discovered ways to borrow sperms, borrow eggs and even borrow womb to address the infertility of heterosexual couples. Being a free-thinker, will you accept homosexuality as normal if it becomes possible for homosexual couples to reproduce? If not, what is your reason? If your reason is because it is unnatural method, then do you see test-tube babies as normal beings?

a on Wed, 10th Jun 2009 2:19 am

supporter of honest people (9th Jun 2009 9:08 pm),

Actually, I wasn’t much bothered by the news of any of the guards. It’s only when I see how homosexuality seems to be elevated here and there online beyond what I understand, that I got bothered and involved. Perhaps I’m quite a busybody.

And seriously, I didn’t know about Ted. And about infertility, I was saying: if the infertile people sees it as normal, then they’ll be cool and non-chalant about their own infertility, but I don’t think they feel that way about infertility.

Anyway, I forsee we won’t see eye to eye, but I guess that’s not really necessary. People call it agree to disagree.

I’m just putting forward a clinical detached way of seeing homosexuality. That’s my piece already. It’s this detached clinical perspective that’s the focal point. So, I also hope you don’t take that I’m the one you’re contending with instead.

Anyway, I do understand where you’re coming from now. You are seeing more from a humanistic perspective. So, it’s seems 2 different things actually. I’m referring more to the condition (oops, but yah.. I still think it’s a condition) of homosexuality itself, leaving out the individuals. While you’re talking more about the individuals themselves, leaving out their homosexuality.

Just my own personal interpretation there.

Temasek Review Is Also On

Temasek Review's Polling Station
Do you accept Pastor Rony Tan's apology?
- No: he should be prosecuted and punished (64%, 312 Votes)
- Yes: let's forgive him and move on (36%, 177 Votes)
Total Voters: 489
Loading ...
- Polls Archive
Make A Donation To Temasek Review

Donation Amount:
(Currency: SGD)
TR’s Statement of Account for Jan 2010
Temasek Review’s Real Time Statistic
Advertisement space 300×200 for $20 a day
Put an ad here for free
Temasek Review’s Dedicated Server Provider
Companies with many foreign workers
Temasek Review’s Most Recent Posts
Temasek Review's Most Read Posts
Temasek Review’s Most Recent Comments

Ad below for $10/day
2010 Calender

February 2010

M T W T F S S

« Jan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Archives

February 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

THE TEMASEK REVIEW

State media versus militant religionism: which is the lesser evil?

Comments

Temasek Review Is Also On

Temasek Review's Automated Newsletter

Temasek Review's Polling Station

Make A Donation To Temasek Review

TR’s Statement of Account for Jan 2010

Temasek Review’s Real Time Statistic

Advertisement space 300×200 for $20 a day

Put an ad here for free

Temasek Review’s Dedicated Server Provider

Companies with many foreign workers

Temasek Review’s Most Recent Posts

Temasek Review's Most Read Posts

Temasek Review’s Most Recent Comments

Ad below for $10/day

2010 Calender

Archives

Advertisement