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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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”?

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?.

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?

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’!

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!