I am straight, what you have done already made you the best teacher!!!! better than alot of straight!!!

you are a brave guy, an excellent teacher and a superb artist. I will always stand up for you!!

I mean those young people who made up their minds shouldn’t make up their minds because they were being influenced by homosexuals? But you just said that it’s up to how society thinks. It seems like it’s important that we listen to how society thinks so long as society thinks the same way that you do, so long as they don’t get influenced by the “wrong” people.

And homosexuals are not that way because they are “in front”. It is not fashion. They are like that because they are born that way. Like I enjoy putting my dick in the same hole where the baby comes out because I was born that way. And there’s nothing modern about homosexuality, if our morals are evolved over centuries why shouldn’t we be like the Greeks 2000 years ago who didn’t see anything wrong with that? It is traditional.

It’s not OK for people with your kind of attitude to go wandering around because you are a menace to society. That’s why I am patient with you but you abuse my kindness!

And once more it’s not about what I think. I always back up what I think with reasons. It is not arbitrary, my whim and fancy. People get hurt when they’re discriminated against.

“i never said “homosexuality is wrong because some homosexuals are promiscuous”. kindly quote where i’ve used those words.”

- “how do you know all homosexuality sex comes with emotional commitment? there are also homosexuals who pay banghras to bang their backside right? where is the emotional commitment then? so homosexuals who pay banghras for sex are exhibiting animal behaviour?”

So do you think I am gay or not? Because earlier on you said “you gays” to me so it’s very confusing whether you get it or not.

I never said that you are hurting me by the way. I don’t lie in bed getting angry over murderers, rapists and homophobes. I just think that they should get locked up, that’s all.

http://p_eppermint.livejournal.com

I have read your posts and I agree that they are inconsistent and you still owe everybody a reason.

For example, you said “i have said so many times. you still insist that i give a reason for my distaste for coffee?”

You need not give a reason for your distaste for coffee but at least you should support that drinking coffee not be encoded as a criminal offense in the book just like 377a. Yes. Then of course you are straight and can continue to have a distaste for homosexual sex. However, do note that some curious straights like to try homosexual sex.

i get annoyed and irritated not because you tell me your feeling about homosexuals. i get irritated and annoyed because you keep going through the same points over and over again, non-stop. worse still, i have to repeat the same story not just to you but to a few others too. why can’t you fellows just read one another’s postings and refrain from repetition?

i say once more i am not discriminating against them and they are not being discriminated either.

it doesn’t matter what you think of me for you are not god who decides who sins and who does not.

i still do not find any concrete evidence of how what i say leads to hurt. you say something i don’t agree. i reply in kind and you say i am hurting you. i hurt you just because i told you flatly i don’t agree with what you’re saying?

come on, you said so yourself people who disapprove of homosexuals are ‘backward’ while people like you are ‘infront’. you see someone in outrageous fashion on the street you’d take a second look right? that’s what you get for being ‘infront’ and for being different, right? people enjoy being ‘infront’ don’t they? otherwise they wouldn’t do it, would they?

i never said “homosexuality is wrong because some homosexuals are promiscuous”. kindly quote where i’ve used those words.

if you can accept homosexuality but you cannot accept promiscuity, then aren’t you being selective about what you choose to accept and what you choose not to? so if you are choosing and i’m also choosing, who is to say your choice is right and my choice is wrong? so you see, at the end of the day, we all have different opinions so we need a universal barometer. that standard would be that of society’s.

i don’t define homosexuality as lewd. i’m only saying, in the context of what is or is not acceptable to society, both lewdness and homosexuality are frowned upon so when an individual decides one is good but not the other, then who is he to prevent another from saying both are good or both are wrong?

you think bestiality is wrong yet homosexuality is right. yet i see them equally wrong. the 18 year old girl seems to suggest they are both acceptable. at least she’s being consistent in her logic whereas you are arbitrary.

come on, who says i did not address your concerns. how many thousand times you want to make me repeat myself? i have my convictions and i will say them. but up to a point i would say, i cannot change what society thinks, i should respect society’s choice, i still have a right to my own opinion and i will continue to live my life based on my principles. but i will not insist that society conforms to my whims and fancies. who am i? god?

please use a little common sense to digest what i just said. spend some time please. it is not contradictory.

i have said so many times. you still insist that i give a reason for my distaste for coffee?

if you still can’t accept it, so be it. i shan’t explain further as i think i’ve entertained you enough.

you sound like you were 10 years ago.

yes they will make a stand. but do you think if they had been taught by a different teacher they would not have made a different stance?

it has been a long conversation with you. you appear incapable of accepting an argument. when you don’t agree with a statement but have no counter arguments to it, you simply say you cannot accept it. if you adopt that position, there’s nothing more that i can say.

and so my argument ends here.

thank you

i do not agree. i often see female pairs that are obivously together with one of them dressed up like a man. so if female pairs today have no qualms showing they are in love, i don’t see why male pairs have any inhibitions. they probably can’t be bothered since falling in live is a private thing isn’t it?

yes they can’t be married but they can cohabit and are not prevented from homosexuality.

what exactly is it that they want to do in public that they are prevented from doing?

they may not be accepted socially but nothing untoward happens to them.

i’m not so sure if they’re disgusted the shit, my opinion is that people can’t be bothered or they are curious.

you say the black may be killed if people now they’re in love with whites. do you actually see homosexuals being threatened and getting killed here? are you sure you’re not making all these up?

what is it that the black and white couple have that the homosexual couple today does not have? apart from marriage and associated stuff that is?

Siteocho,
>>>Pls note that I have always been referring to gay people as “them”. The reason is simple: I am not one of them.<<<

If one wants to be pedantic, your statement can be construed as discriminatory towards gays. Of course I know you don’t mean it, but this is what I mean by the discussion getting “philosophical”.

Pls note that I have always been referring to gay people as “them”. The reason is simple: I am not one of them.

First of all you claim that your attitude does not hurt the feelings of homosexuals. So I do an experiment, I turn it around, and say that I espouse those exact same attitudes towards you.

Then you get annoyed and irritated. But then again you can turn around and say that you are not really discriminating against them. I don’t understand. So are you or are you not discriminating against them?

But for the record, yes, I actually think you are a sinner. I won’t talk about why gay people get hurt by these attitudes since others have already done it for me.

If you do claim that it’s alright for homosexuals to be stared at when they hold hands. Would you stare at a heterosexual couple holding hands the same way you’d stare at a homosexual couple? I don’t think so.

You say that homosexuality is wrong because some homosexuals are promiscuous. But some heterosexuals are also promiscuous. Does that mean that sex between men and women are wrong? Bottom line is, promiscuity and sexual orientation are 2 different matters.

Lewdness is also wrong, but lewdness and sexual orientation are also 2 separate matters. Problem is, you would define homosexual behaviour as lewd in itself. I’m sure that when you first found out that your parents had sex in order to give birth to you, it was really disturbing, but you did get used to it. I’m sure when you found out that half of the population have different types of genitals from you it was really disturbing but you got used to it. My point is that it’s simply a matter of getting used to it.

Bestiality is wrong because bestiality is always rape, and rape is always wrong.

The other thing is, since I made this point earlier and you didn’t address it, is this: do you think that something is right based on your own conviction, or do you think that something is right or wrong based on what “society” thinks? Because you’ve given me very contradictory answers on this issue.

My stand is that it’s not what I think, but rather you need to give a reason why it’s wrong. I just don’t accept the reasons given that homosexuality is wrong because I haven’t come across an argument I can poke holes into.

And it could be that an 18 year old might be idealistic about these things but I was 18 more than 10 years ago, I didn’t see anything wrong with homosexuality at that point, and I haven’t changed my standpoint since.

Many of the young kids that were taught by him will make a stand on this issue now, and after that I don’t think they will change their minds easily.

how exactly have my opinions hurt anyone? how has it screwed up the lives of homosexuals? you mean just because the public disapproves, the homosexuals don’t do it? they still do it regardless of what others say right? how are they being repressed?

‘first do no harm’ applies to homosexuals too. in a way, they’re causing unecessary disturbance to society. i have never once asked them to stop doing it have i? and i also didn’t ask them to shut up. i merely said that we can discuss but after a while when the stance is made clear and you still won’t budge, then probably you can’t take no for an answer instead.

there is endless discussion because our legitimate concerns are deemed fallacies by you yet you insist that your concerns aren’t fallacies.

homosexuality is the same as animal sex, guns, porno and nudism in the sense that it is against public sentiments. as simple as that.

yes you can challenge the moral standards of society. but at the end of the day, having challenged and firmly rebuffed, are you going to keep challenging and challenging? you’re wasting everyone’s time right? because in the natural course of things, what you want will naturally come given time because society evolves. the only way you get society to change instantaneously is through a dictator or through war. is that what you want?

don’t you realise there were actual injustices the blacks were subjected which is why they were being supported by the people? what injustices are the homosexuals being subjected to? what exactly is it that they don’t have that the rest have? it is not wrong to fight for injustices. problem is there is no injustice.

suppose you were born in arabia and you are required to be wrapped up all the time? what are you going to do about it? what can you do about it?

so while you think homosexuality concerns our society, nudity also concerns our society but isn’t an issue simply no one has yet come out to strongly demand for nudism.

why is lewdness wrong? the french sunbathes in the nude in front of children and don’t consider it wrong. why should lewdness be wrong yet homosexuality is right?

exactly, if sex is a private thing, then homo or heterosexuality are both private things and should be kept private.

are you saying that homosexuals are not sodomising one another because the law says no? you must be kidding me. name me one homosexual who doesn’t practise it because the law says no.

you are confusing two things, homosexuality and marriage. homosexuality is an individual’s sexual tendencies whereas marriage is a social institution built upon social norms. all the things you mentioned like shared bank account and visitation rights are associated with marriage which in the context of our society is between one man and one woman. if you think that restricting to this format is wrong and we should also have marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, then are you prepared to accept that we can have even wider combinations like one man with four women or one woman with four men or four men with four women or many men with many women? even LKY once mooted that we should have polygamy and some joker actually wrote to the press to suggest men should be allowed to marry their maid while keeping their wife.

so who is right and who is wrong? answer is as i’ve said so many times, there is no right or wrong. right or wrong is a function of time and in our time the only marriage institution that is accepted is between man and woman. it may evolve still but as of now, it is still man and woman.

you say that people don’t sit with heterosexuals but how do i believe you when i don’t see it happening or reported anywhere? not even in onlinecitizen.

are you required to declare you are a homosexual during employement interview? if not, what’s the fuss with employers not employing homosexuals? so i still don’t see discrimination like you described them.

but they are being accepted and no one hounds them. have you ever heard any case of homosexuals being hounded here? i have not.

yes they do it at home and it is their damn own business. in that case why publicise or advocate to the rest of the world?

come on, you’re telling me people heckle and verbally abuse. i think that only happens in the western societies. we are a mild mannered lot … except for road rages perhaps.

yes you can stand up but do you insist your way even though it affects others and they have clearly said no? does it not make you sick when one person forces ten others to abide by her wishes? that’s barbarism isn’t it?

why do you insist on changing core values of others? it is core and dear to them. are you not committing what you claim that non-homosexuals are committing, denying their rights?

but from the amount of fierce shouting we are getting, it doesn’t seem like bit by bit is it? i suppose your mouth is yours and no one can or should shut you up. but you have asked, and we have said no, you ask again, we say no again, you ask again and we say no again … how long you want to keep this up? 10 years ago, we were less accepting, 10 years later there are more people like you who are accepting. we are evolving. it is a matter or time. why fight against the forces of our time? why not ride along with the passage of time?

just because you say there is no right or wrong time doesn’t mean the society thinks likewise. just because you say we should change now doesn’t mean 4 million people say likewise. ok, maybe not 4 million people but based on findings, probably 3 million at least?

in what ways are homosexuals deprived of the same privileges or respect as straight people? i don’t discriminate against tea drinkers, neither do it discriminate against homosexuals. homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a private thing and ought to be practised at home.

yes, Mr Fong can talk freely about his sexual orientation but he is doing more than that. because the internet is a public domain, it becomes a public issue. you did say that it is their own private thing didn’t you?

and what fear does Mr Fong or any homosexual have? nothing untoward has happened to them right?

you say that i say that “it is wrong to get society to accept homosexuals”. but i never said that. i have always been saying that our society accepts homosexuals because there is no discrimation against them. they are not subjected to any of the injustices suffered by the blacks.

it’s a pleasure discussing with you, but what’s with telling me that you’re an 18 year old lady?

are you representative of those in forties?

NTU survey shows that older folks are less inclined to accept homosexuality. i’m not saying 40+ is old. i’m only saying that 40+ is older than 20+.

so how do you expect anyone, you or me, to conclude society’s preference on the views of a small number who posted here?

“while the proponents of homosexuality like to compare their ‘plight’ with those of the blacks, they need to seriously consider the appropriateness of that comparison.

none of the unfairness the blacks were dealt with are being subjected to by the homosexuals.”

Let say:
What if a black man and a white woman were in love then?

I see more commons in them and homosexual couple, hopefully you do.

They CAN’T let the world know they were/are in love.
They CAN’T be married.
They CAN ONLY do all things in private.
They AIN’T accepted socially.
Their togetherness DISGUSTED the shit out of the millions.
Of course, they still can be in love, but DONT ever be found out. Otherwise, they might be force to leave their jobs, throw out by their families, look down by their friends (for the Black then, he might even be killed).

“what exactly are the homosexuals standing up for? what exactly is it they don’t have that non-homosexuals have?”

What do you think they, Black & White couple, wanted?

What, so if I were older and male, you wouldn’t care? What kind of logic is that?

And yes, they’re philosophical. I don’t swing that way. But if someone else were to do it, hey, I have no objections.

Actually? I don’t see that much wrong with having sex with an animal, assuming you’re not hurting it.

And for the record? I’m a straight 18-year-old female. Just so you know.<<<

To hear these from a young lady like you really saddens me ……. my only wish is that these thoughts are merely philosophical and conceptual, and not something which you would really incorporate into your life. Keep walking straight, else you may have to walk with a limp the rest of your life (didn’t mean to be a pun, but anyways).

Yes. If the animal consents, then yes. What the hell is wrong with interspecies sex? If aliens came to Earth one day, and they were sentient, and a relationship developed between a human and an alien, you going to say that they shouldn’t have sex too?

Actually? I don’t see that much wrong with having sex with an animal, assuming you’re not hurting it. But I don’t want to get into that argument, because for crying out loud homosexuality isn’t like bestiality, or paedophilia. So.

The problem with innate senses of morality is that people have different ideas of what’s wrong. White supremacists innately feel that blacks are evil, that Chinks are cunning, and that the Aryan race is superior and should wipe out all other races. Misogynists innately feel that women are inferior and that it’s just and correct for them to obey men. Are you going to say that *they’re* right, too, because that’s their sense of morality? Surely not. Logic is necessary, in the end, to determine standards of behaviour to which we *all* can conform. That’s how living in communities works.

So no, I don’t go by my gut feeling. Not when gut feelings result in alienation of other people and blind hatred and ostracism and genocide. Not when I know where “feeling within me that something is wrong” leads.

Trulysingapore,

Yeah? The difference between us is that my opinions don’t actually hurt anybody. This homophobia, this idea that homosexuality is wrong, on the other hand, has royally screwed up many homosexual people’s lives. They don’t deserve to be forced to repress themselves because they’re different. Primum non nocere–*first do no harm*. You can think it’s wrong all you like. That’s fine. You just don’t get to tell them to stop doing it, or to shut up about it.

There is no endless discussion. It’s just that people keep bringing up the same ridiculous fallacy again and again. But look, I’ll be fair–explain to me how homosexuality is like any of those three things. I’ll listen, and then see.

Yes, I have. Yes, the animals look like they’re enjoying it.

You *can’t* say that because something is immoral by societal standards, it shouldn’t be challenged. You think standards change by themselves? You think racial segregation ended magically, by itself? No, it changed because black people got up and started fighting for equal treatment, in a society that *wasn’t prepared for it*. You think that was wrong?

To start with, I don’t agree with the Muslim idea of how woman should dress, either. But it’s their religion, not mine, and any change has to come from one of them. Not from me, an outsider. This issue with homosexuality, on the other hand, concerns all of our society–a society I’m part of. This I can argue about.

And look, I would argue that lewdness in and of itself isn’t wrong. It’s inappropriate when shown to minors, let’s say, because it engenders wrong and possibly destructive concepts of sex within them, e.g. any man is entitled to sleep with any woman he wants (I’m not making that up, people think that way). It is, perhaps, inappropriate in public areas, because sex is usually (emphasis on “usually”) a private thing. But it’s not particularly harmful, and it’s not wrong.

NO. THEY CAN’T. Under Singapore law, sodomy is still illegal. LKY says it’ll change soon, but it hasn’t changed yet. And what do they want? They want the privileges that every other heterosexual person enjoys. They want acceptance, which means that regardless of what you think of their behaviour, you don’t go and hound them about it. They want to be able to marry each other, so they can have the legal privileges a spouse has. Homosexual couples now don’t have visitation rights in hospital, they can’t have a shared bank account, one spouse doesn’t get financial benefits when his/her partner dies, I COULD GO ON for a very long time. They want all the little things that you and I and other straight people all take for granted. You say they’re not prohibited from eating with heterosexuals. Not by law, sure, but by people’s opinions, they are. Many straight people wouldn’t sit with homosexuals. Some employers don’t employ homosexual people, regardless of their qualifications. That counts as discrimination–it’s not the exact same kind that black people faced, but it’s discrimination all the same.

They don’t hurt anyone because, yes, they do it in private, and also because whatever they do with their bodies is their own damn business.

Staring’s okay. Unfortunately, people often *do more than stare*. They heckle, they verbally abuse.

…So if no one else supports you, you don’t stand up for it? You don’t *try*? That makes me sick.

Likewise–so if they perceive it in a particular way, I shouldn’t try to change it? Sorry. I don’t work that way.

No, not instant acceptance. Bit by bit is okay. But none of its proponents are shutting up until we’ve made it all the way. Acceptance doesn’t come free, you have to fight for it. So we will.

No, I don’t *believe* in right or wrong times for things to change. Homosexuals don’t get the respect that heterosexuals do? Then that should change. Now. It’s not a matter of it being the right time or wrong time, it’s a matter of fixing this *problem* ASAP. Oh, and not all 4 million people are in agreement with you.

You don’t have to like coffee; you don’t have to like homosexuality. But they deserve the same privileges that straight people get, and they deserve the same respect. If you drink coffee, you don’t discriminate against tea-drinkers, do you?

You know, I’m not even sure where the argument is going. I don’t want to make you think that homosexuality is right. You can *keep* your current opinions on that. I just want homosexuals to be able to talk freely about who they are, as Mr Fong did, and for them to be able to act according to their nature without fear of repercussions. Basically, if I’m arguing about anything, it’s to get you to not oppose them. But you can think they’re wrong. That’s fine.

Saying that it’s wrong to get society to accept them, however, that I disagree with. Is that what you’re trying to say?

And for the record? I’m a straight 18-year-old female. Just so you know.