The article by Joel Tan was well written, as you can see from the comments from several readers.

You appear to have missed the main thrust of Joel’s argument, which is that religion in general has been given the respect it does not deserve. For centuries, religious believers/practitoners – the God-believing kind – have been taking centre stage, and they still appear to be doing so, and enjoying privileges and treatment that appear non-existent for non-believers; this is not strictly in reference to our local environment.

“Religions are practised by people and people are not perfect. The wrongs committed could be the fault of the people themselves who abuse the name of the religion, and not the religion itself.”

Not entirely true; in the so-called holy books of some religions there exist edicts supposedly laid down by their God calling for the killing or condemnation of infidels. If you are a Christian, the Judeo-Christian Bible is your source.

“and what so wrong about teaching creationism?”

Has anyone here said teaching creationism is wrong? Creationism can be taught to those who are interested in learning more in this area, but it must not be taught in a science classroom as a science subject. Why? Because creationism is not science; in recent times creationism has tried to intrude into public school science classrooms, in the guise of intelligent design. Are you savvy about this?

As for evolution or evolutionary theory, there are enough literature written about it; I think you should make an effort to read up on this topic before questioning whether it is a lie.

From reading your comments I would presume that you are a religious person, probably a Christian.

Try to convince me that religion is not a human invention; I will give up my atheism if you can produce cogent arguments.

I would like to express my concurrence with the posts initiated by Michael [#3],
The Editor [#7 & #19], angry doc [#48, #56, #73, #86 and #93]

Patriot #126: “And it is exactly because of these natural inclinations that laws, religious teachings and family disciplines come into play to prevent ‘unintended misdeeds’ due to inborn nature. In conclusion, may I say that inborn nature does not mean acts related to it have to be accepted as normal.”

I don’t think anyone can argue against your conclusion.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

You said you were brought up as a Christian. May I ask: Are you still a Christian, or have become ex-Christian?

Legitimacy exists, and independently of public support.

It is strange of you to argue that Religion can be opposed to Human Rights, when the Human Rights philosophy – although its proponents forget now – largely was inspired by religion in the first place.

To be true, certain members – including sadly leaders – of religious groups were hypocrites (i.e. violated human rights), but that doesn’t discredit religious groups themselves. The basic fundamental human rights are always promoted by all religions, if you bother to examine properly their scripture.

By “examine properly”, I mean that you have to examine the proper scriptural context, rather than impute modern environs on them. For instance, St Paul is anti-Slavery; Onesimius is an example of a slave that he freed.

I do find the concept of “Religious Freedom” quite narrow, because it only encompasses religious doctrines and rituals; whilst religion is far more than just that.

I guess you are probably not here anymore, but anyway:-

Congrats on raising a good point, which would be good for everybody to bear in mind. It is indeed confusing when the pro-Gay Lobby keeps shifting between 2 arguments: (1) Homosexuality is in-born; (2) Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

When people argue against (1), Pink Lobbyists say that they are disrespecting (2).

When people argue against (2), Pink Lobbyists say that they are ignorant of (1).

do forgive me if I sound offensive but I really got to say that natural inclinations, be it sexual orientations, needs and other behaviours, cannot and should not be allowed just because they are inborn.

Humanity has always some forms of codes of conduct to regulate the behaviours of the tribes, the society and the Human World. Religions too have teachings to ‘enlighten’ humanity towards ‘acceptable norms’, though I do feel that not all Religious teachings are perfect.

Yes, there are also scientific proof that mankinds maybe born with criminal, drinking, drug and other wayward genes. And it is exactly because of these natural inclinations that laws, religious teachings and family disciplines come into play to prevent ‘unintended misdeeds’ due to inborn nature. In conclusion, may I say that inborn nature does not mean acts related to it have to be accepted as normal.

patriot.

here is the link

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/06/gayness-is-inborn-is-indefensible.html

I have decided to reply you in my blog instead. Because of 2 reasons.

1 – This topic is now buried behind the front page of online citizen’s home page and hence, it is a chore trying to retrieve this article just to post.

2 – I really don’t know when this moderation bug will be fixed.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/religion-and-the-right-not-to-respect-it/

Hope you don’t mind me redirecting you.

You would say that sexual orientation is choice. Than you would also have to accept that heterosexuals can choose to become homosexual.

The pro gay activist would say sexual orientation is not a choice. Than they would have to accept that when it comes to sex, humans have no free will. They are nothing but sex machines so why have sexual rights?

Both statements really cannot make it. So the scientists just say the situation is complex. (which I think is just avoiding the question)

And yes I agree with you on this one argument about choice and sexual orientation as used by the pro gay people is very bad. Plus they try and drag the scientists who are actually very confuse about the entire thing themselves.

The pro gay camp should just stick to their other (much better) arguments and just drop this inborn stuff.

There lies the twisted irony in the gay argument of “inborn”! It has come down to the following argument…..

If you gays feel it is their right to have sex with same gender, than simply say that you are practising your right. No need to go further.

On the other hand, if you claim “inborn”, it gives the idea that actually hor, … “I don’t really want to do it lah, but then ah, got something in me I cannot control. So don’t blame me hor, blame this inborn thing hor.”

Make up your mind. To me, whenever gays bring up this inborn argument, it tells me that gays are not confident that they believe what they do is right. Hence, they have to blame this thing which is beyond their control – the inborn stuff.

This is the wishy-washy argument I was referring to in my last post, in reference to how gays argue. They go round in circles, get themselves stuck, cry foul and blame everyone else for their stuck situation – and come back to square one.

So what is it now? Is gay a choice or not a choice?

If it is, then admit it is and say that you want to practise your right. No need to go further, no need to bring in this inborn stuff.

On the other hand, if you say it is inborn, you are implying that gayness is not really a choice. Then you can forget about being allowed to “practise your rights”, because being gay was never your choice in the first place!

Doing something that you feel is not your choice, and blaming that action on an inherent thing in you which you cannot control, is bordering on mental sickness – like suicide and/or self-inflicted injury. Sorry for the analogy, but can you find a better one?

So what is it now? Choice? Good. Argue no more about this inborn thing.

Not choice? Good. Get psychiatric help, so that you won’t have to engage in something you don’t wish to engage in the first place.

Sorry to sound harsh, but after arguing with gays for months, I begin to feel that gays don’t even know what they want from themselves. What more then about what they want from society?

“If your point is that sexual preference is inborn, then it gives the paedophile a case to argue for leniency, doesn’t it? ”

They may give you excuse. But in this case, who would you choose to protect. An adult (even with such inborn tendency) or the impressionable kid being preyed upon ? Surely, the answer is obvious or maybe it is not soo obvious to you.

“On the other hand, if you talk about age of consent – Aha! So you admit that it is by CONSENT that you allow another male have sex with you, isn’t it?

So how does the argument of inborn (which implies it is not choice) come into the picture then?”

Are you saying that people with inborn tendency (gay) cannot concurrently excercise the choice of sexual consent (separate act by itself). Whereas, all hetrosexual (by virtue of being hetrosexual / straight) have the exclusive right to the act of exercising the choice of sexual consent. What twisted logic are you trying to prove.

I have nothing specially in favour of gays. All I ask is to for you to respect the rights of others also (even if they are gays, etc). If they disturb you personally without your consent, protect yourself with whatever you have.

No, that is still NOT a solid example. We have had some allegations by gays (including Yawning Bread) that S377A has been invoked. However, if you read the articles carefully, it has not been confirmed that S377A has been invoked.

I hate to say this, but gays have been crying wolf for quite some time now.

===

Straight
>>While gays are mostly consenting aduts (just like lesbians). Paedophiles fall into a totally different league where ill-minded adults prey on innocent impressionable children – an act which any right minded adult will abhor & forbid.
>>

So what is the MAIN POINT of your argument? Is it choice (as in whether inborn or not) or consent (as in age of consent?)

Like I said, I have had discussion with gays and they all take the same line of argument. When one argument fails, they move to the next, complicating the discussion. This goes round until we are back to square one.

If your point is that sexual preference is inborn, then it gives the paedophile a case to argue for leniency, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, if you talk about age of consent – Aha! So you admit that it is by CONSENT that you allow another male have sex with you, isn’t it?

So how does the argument of inborn (which implies it is not choice) come into the picture then?

>>I feel that it is only right that when your rights are not protected and in fact being discriminated against even by laws, it is natural that you make a helluva noise.
>>

I have been asking over and over and over again in my blog. How does S377A discriminate gays, if gays are allowed to have sex privately? There have been assertions that S377A has been invoked. Too bad, that is all speculation, if you read the articles written (Yawning Bread’s article included).

So come off with those wolf cries and come up with real, solid evidence that S377A has been invoked.

>>Just ask yourself, why the tabling of S377A in parliament for possible amendment and retraction (if I am not mistaken about the whole thing in parliament) if there was not a slightest intention for it to be changed in the first place
>>

If you ask me, I never really gave two hoots if that section existed or not. I only get myself involved in this, because gays, during the time of parliament debate, had to harass me, my family and my peers for support.

They did not respect our rights. We have a right to remain neutral, don’t we? But noooo, gays had to harass us by screaming that we discriminate them, just because we don’t agree to put our signatures on their appeal letter.

This was my first impression of gays – aggressive and boisterous. I thought that this kind of behaviour was just a one off incident. But again, nooooo – we even had gays threatening a lady MP.

Too bad that the first and last impression gays have been giving is always negative. Visit my blog. See how gays throw tantrums, shout, yell, scream just because I don’t agree with them.

Is this the way to behave if you want society to support you?

I have nothing against gays. All I ask of gays is that the next time you want to fight for a cause and if I practise MY RIGHT not to support it, please respect my decision.

I am not against gayness per se. I am against the way gays behave, when they don’t get their lollipop.

You are good in parrying and diverting points and always very dead sure. While you are eloquent, your statements are weak in logics and rationale.

While gays are mostly consenting aduts (just like lesbians). Paedophiles fall into a totally different league where ill-minded adults prey on innocent impressionable children – an act which any right minded adult will abhor & forbid.

While you are right that all minorities get discriminated. Be it race, religion, culture or sexual make up. Mostly, it is done not with the sanction of blatant open laws.

“Difference is that gays make a helluva noise”.

I feel that it is only right that when your rights are not protected and in fact being discriminated against even by laws, it is natural that you make a helluva noise. In fact, I would feel that it is not normal to keep quite and send the wrong signal that it is alright that you should be discriminated.

Just ask yourself, why the tabling of S377A in parliament for possible amendment and retraction (if I am not mistaken about the whole thing in parliament) if there was not a slightest intention for it to be changed in the first place.

Sigh… I will have to make things more obvious.

This is the concrete example. Suppose you are a gay guy in Singapore and you are caught having sex with another gay guy. In court the prosecutor says that you had a choice in the matter and hence you are guilty. Your defense claims that you have an irresistible impulse which gave you no choice and hence you are not to blame. A expert witness is than called to give testimony on the matter of choice.
Who will the expert witness support?

Both examples ask one question. Is sexual orientation determined by choice? So the expert witness should support either the prosecution or the defense in both cases. If the expert witness supports the prosecution in the first example but the defense in the second, well this would be inconsistent. The question is the same after all. Similarity, if the support was reversed.

The reason why you came up with the “fantasy island” analogy is because all scenarios gays have painted are unrealistic. You can’t find a real-life analogy. Thought about that?

===

Straight,

Isn’t it funny how gays try to portray themselves as straight to lend credence to their arguments. I have had enough of discussion with gays to know if you are one or not.

>>If human being can be scr**ed up in their genes in a lot of other areas (e.g sight, hearing, physical deformation, etc). Why can’t humans be scr**ed up in their sexual make-up.
>>

Are you saying gays are screwed up? I won’t object to that if that is your point.

OR

Are you saying that paedophiles can use the argument above to escape conviction?

To that, I’ll object.

>>We are lucky that we are straight so we do not have to face this uneasy situation of being discriminated against.
>>

I don’t think you are straight. But that is not the point. Point is this feeling of discrimination stuff. Sure, ALL minorities get discriminated. Be it race, religion, culture or sexual make up.

Difference is that gays make a helluva noise, rolling on the ground like a spoilt brat kid, when the pain is only a pinprick.

That’s the impression I have been getting about gays, simply by observing their behaviour, since the S377A incident in parliament.

Other forms of discrimination are far worse, yet the victims are silent. So what’s the big deal that gays are facing?