Wilde was gay. There is no proof whatsover – except blind conjecture – that the other three were.

And I disagree with your stance on Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family is not an anti-gay lobby. It is a comprehensive organization that deals with promoting family-life, repairing broken marriages and so on, things which our society desperately needs. The supposedly “anti-gay” section of the website is less than 10% of its content.

Focus on the Family is not the Straits Times, and should never be mixed up with any agent in the press.

I think what a lot of people dont realise is that “Focus on the Family” is not just anti-gay but pretty much anti-every other religion – in the US they run courses which teach fundamentalist christians the evils of other religions and how to prosyeltise to them.
A fond target is Muslims:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/faith_in_life/how_do_i_share_my_faith/christian_compassion_and_the_muslim.aspx

And yet our govt allows such groups to proliferate in S’pore under the guise of being “pro-family”. They’ve even hoodwinked Today newspaper into carrying columns by its founder James Dobson.

Sorry, but as much as I agree with most parts of your article, I find that your article is undermined by your grammar mistakes/typos. Call me picky, but I think some proof-reading of this article should have been done before it was published. I’m all for gay rights and equality, but no offence, this is not one of the better-written articles on TOC.

By the way, I was wondering what you meant by “My positive lifestyle is the most persuasive and convincing example and the best.” Most persuasive, convincing and the ‘best’ example of gays?

Thanks for the good article Anthony. I have a better picture of gays now.

MSM never provides a neutral picture of the gay community in Singapore. Gays there continue to live in guilt and shame. Our culture back home is at least a decade away.

Though I am a Christian, I try not to discriminate though pastors often preached on anti-homo message at the pulpit. Some even downright say that gays are sinners!

My personal take is that though I do not approve of their lifestyle (prosmiscous), they are still human and are love by God.

Take care.

Not that I like the thought of two men kissing each other, but I believe gays should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long since they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others.

However, religious nuts just simply cannot leave secular people alone. The so called “moderates” aren’t any better as it is from moderates that the nuts get their support from.

Did Gay’ism just got invented by itself?

I have to be truthful, but i do not approve of gay, but just like Gilbert, i respect them as fellow human who are equal.

however, what i will like to point out is DBS promotion with Focus on the Family. “It has a social responsibility to ensure that it does not discriminate against their customers.” and together with the retrenchment of their staff…this shows us how much consideration is taken before they implement a new scheme…

Inconvenient truth,

I was shocked to read that article by Focus on Family. Do you think we can report them to the police for promoting such material??

Somehow the focus on the topic falls upon the sexuality aspect of the issue – how gays fought for DBS to withdraw its support for anti-gay FOTF.

The thing about FOTF is that it is rather misogynist in the ideologies that they proselytize as well, demanding the wives to give in to the husbands’ sexual needs etc by claiming that it will affect the husbands’ wellbeing. Such ideology allows for the justification of marital rape, which is still (partially) legalized in Singapore.

FOTF is not just anti-gays (10% of its content as mentioned by Arix), it’s also anti-women.

Hello my happy rainbow fellow netizens,

Why is there a need to overeact? Tell me, if you guys want to knob each other, does anyone disturb you?

What you decide to do in the privacy of your bush is your business lah, who is disturbing you?

Not to say this is Malaysia where you have alot of religious officers running around trying to justify their keep by finding fault with everything from hatha yoga to holding hands.

So why do you want to spoil the fun of a some straight folk who just want to enjoy some spare time with wifey and the kiddies in a family outing? Is it really so wrong, if all they wish for is to remain conservatively open minded, but not so open that their brains start spilling out?

Come on surely that’s understandable right? Where is the slight? Why even attempt to impose your values on straight folk? That is really beyond me.

The way I see it, you rainbow folk already have your pied de terre, so why muscle into the space of others who may just want a family outing or do the things that nature ordained them to do so well?

How polite will it be lets say, if Darkness was serenading one of his many girlfriends and one of you turned up to spoil the event by telling him how he should park his boat in the harbor?

Do you understand now?

You go your way, we go ours lah, the twain need not meet – there is plenty of space for accomodating differences wot? – so why are you here even baying for blood?

Let’s try to co-exist.

Come on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN-ZGalBKc8

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

MOH’s original press release is actually quite neutral on the whole issue. It is a clear-cut case of Straits Times being biased.

Firstly I’m glad to hear that your aunts, despite being conservative Christians, have accepted you as a person. That is the right thing to do, even if they may disagree with your lifestyle.

But I think your bashing of Focus on the Family, DBS, Straits Times and MOH all on the common thread of them being “anti-gay” is not fair. Focus has the right to have their stands on issues. DBS has the right to donate to whatever charities it deems to be responsible and contributing to society. The Straits Times report, as far as I could tell, was no more biased than say their reports on religious terrorists.

By having this whole campaign to get DBS to withdraw their support for Focus, these activists are committing the same act of muzzling views that oppose their own, that they accuse their opponents of doing.

I think I will add to Gerald’s post:-

1) It is a mistake to claim that moderates fuel fundamentalists. In fact, moderates often speak out against fundamentalists, a point that ironically the article inconvenient truth leads to actually mentions.

2) Before calling Focus on the Family anti-Islam, could you please read the article that you link your post to? Firstly, the article is by the Freiss Family Foundation not by Focus on the Family, so if you want to accuse anyone of being anti-Islamic, accuse Freiss. Secondly, what Freiss is really speaking against is radical Islam and how that has sapped the Muslim world of love. In fact, the article even berates the “biased media” for portraying Islam in bad light.

3) Focus on the Family is a VWO, and it really seeks to promote the well-being of families. Just because it may be conservative in ideology, doesn’t mean that it is sore that needs to be removed from society. And in our society where charity has sort of gotten a hit, it is natural for Focus to seek sponsorship from DBS, whatever the latter’s motives are.

4) While Dr Dobson is somewhat misguided in his practices, it doesn’t downplay his mentality or the importance of the family. (I do agree that TODAY should can Dobson though.) Focus on the Family is guided by the purpose of fixing up today’s broken families, preventing divorces, ensuring child welfare and other such important tasks to the wellbeing of families and societies. So if DBS was supporting that side, it is not really wrong either on a moral or ethical perspective.

5) Pink-lobby and Pink-lobby supporters like Anthony Koh like to argue that they are being targeted as part of a smear campaign. I won’t comment on the motives of DBS or the Straits Times – who might have their own hidden agendas – but Focus on the Family makes it very clear that they are against homosexual behaviour, not against homosexuals as persons. So no, Focus on the Family is not part of a massive anti-gay conspiracy trying to throw innocent LGBT people into jail. As a Christian and on a personal (secular) level, I support their stance, though I think that the culpability for homosexual behaviour is misplaced. But that is another issue altogether (and requires more space to cover).

Hello my fellow left-handed peeps,

Please don’t overreact if we start saying that left-handedness is a sin and are less efficient workers due to your uncommon hand orientation. Tell me, if you guys want to use your left hand, does anyone disturb you?

Which hand you decide to use in your privacy is your business lah, who is disturbing you?

Not to say this are ancient times where you have the religious and parents finding fault with your left-handedness and forcing you to use your right hand.

So why do you want to spoil the interests of the dominant right-handed community who just wants to enjoy a nice all right-handed family outing with no left-handedness involved? Is it really so wrong, if all they wish for is to remain conservatively open minded, but not so open that their brains start spilling out and the horrific consequence that their children may become left-handed?

Come on, surely that’s understandable right? Why impose your left-handed values on right-handed folks? That is really beyond me.

The way I see it, more and more equipment are suited for left-handed use, so why use your left hand and muscle into the space of right-handed supremacists who just want to do the things nature intended them to rightfully do with their right hand?

Us poor, poor right handed majority. So discriminated by the left-handers.

I just realized my English is horrible in my previous comment. I apologize and attribute it to the fact that half the typing is done by my sinful left hand.

We need an organization that makes it very clear that its against left-handedness, and not left-handed individuals. On a secular and religious level, people will support this stance. After all, left-handedness leads to inefficiency, and there are religions which disfavour left-handedness. But no, this organization will not be part of a massive anti-left conspiracy trying to throw innocent left-handers into jail

Gays claiming activism fatigue here in Singapore? I guess non-gays are suffering from that too, not only gays. Can’t have a day passing by nowadays without reading about a gay/straight intelligent non-religious person telling me how biased, intolerant and homophobic our society is and how normal gays are besides their sexual preference. I agree on both counts, to a certain extent. Yes, continual engagement is key towards change for a more equitable and tolerant society. Yes some ignorant people make discrimatory comments out of ignorance. But they are of no practical consequence. Every demographic experiences a little discrimination, the aged, blue-collared, pregnant working women etc. Yes the law doesn’t make sense. But I don’t see gays being discriminated against in practice, where it matters. And gay friends I speak to say the same. So please stop sounding so bitter all the time. It’s getting a little tiresome. Just make positive, explanatory points and if people don’t get it, move on and get on with life.

“Although gays are portrayed negatively in our mass media, the works by gay artists and writers are studied in schools. Among the many great masters in the arts and cultural history, I wonder how many educated Singaporeans know that Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, William Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde are gay. If gay men are bad in the eye of our society, what worth is there to study the works of Shakespeare for example? If by allowing positive gay news in our mainstream media is seen as encouraging and promoting gay lifestyle, then sadly gay men in Singapore can only count on themselves to construct a positive image.”

I don’t think they spend their time harping on how gay they were. They probably just got on with their work and let their contributions speak for themselves.

OK, I’ll start with this – “What have we got against Teddy Bears?” I mean whatever one thinks of a charity’s stance of people’s sexual orientation, I kind of thought the Teddy Bears were cute and it was so sad that people were getting angry with the Teddy Bears.

Having said that, I do think allot of education needs to be done on creating more awareness of HIV/AIDS. It was like when you listen to the likes of Thio Li-Ann talks about how Gay Sex is immoral, you have to shudder if you are a logical person. The largest group of people suffering from HIV are actually heterosexuals, the number of infected from this group remains larger than the combined homosexual and bisexual communities.

I’d agree that DBS has its rights to donate to whichever charities it wants to. But it must do so while adhering to corporate social responsibilities since it is after all using the money it earns from the public to sponsor the charities. This will mean that the public should have the power to speak up against its choice of charities. Ultimately, it’s still the company’s decision to stand by the charities or drop them.

Somehow it seems to me that we are attributing too much causal power to the anti-FOTF group (myself included), as if we alone can push for the so called gay-agenda. We made our stand just as FOTF and DBS made theirs. Can we deny DBS’s capability to decide what is best for itself? Is the anti-FOTF group really that powerful? Or is DBS really that limp-minded to just sway wherever the wind blows?

In the same vein, I will like to ask if it’s appropriate for me to say that “by having this whole campaign to get Singaporeans to withdraw their support for one-party political system, these (political) activists are committing the same act of muzzling views that oppose their own, that they accuse their opponents of doing”?

I doubt anyone will agree simply because FOTF is still free to voice their stands. DBS is still free to choose whichever charities it so wishes to sponsor. Just as Singaporeans are still free to decide whether or not one- or two-party political system is better.

Seth,

I am joining your org. Left-handedness is anti-family because when the family is sitting down having meals, the left hander will use his left hand and obstruct the family member who is using his right hand. This have caused a lot of families to be broken up because of the frequent quarrels during meals.

The left handers also stubbornly resist advice to change their lifestyles or to cure their illness. We need society to pressure this group of people to change for the sake of social cohesiveness. Although it is more sensible to change our perspectives on left-handers, that it is due to nature, why bother when we can force them to change? Besides, what better way to spend our free time than to go after some left-handers.

You know, there is one article in the past whereby the pro-left handers said to either keep the gun or pull the trigger….now if i am the one who is the decision maker, i would have pull the trigger since they are challenging me and thinking they will win.

Gilbert #4 – I would like to correct a misconception (fairly common) that gay men are promiscuous. They (the ones I know anyway) go through pretty much the same relationship cycles heterosexuals do. He met a nice guy in another state, introduced him to all of us when that guy came over to visit, and then eventually told us the sad news that they broke up. He now works in Apple and hopefully has a larger space for gay interactions in California than here at Champaign. Oh … and he has preferences … I am not his “type”, he prefers plumber people. And even if I were his “type”, he would never knowingly make sexual advances towards heterosexuals, the same way we would never make sexual advances to people whom we know do not feel about us the way we might about them.

Bottom line – pretty much “normal” people relationship-wise.

Ya I advocate an inclusive society whereby gays and rights can live in harmony together.

The govt so far has being too conservative in it’s outlook and may have even lag behind here. For example, PM has mentioned that Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese PM and it is clear that the party itself is not ready whereas Singapore is more ready than ever.

MM and PM have always mentioned that our society may be too conservative and not ready to accept gays outrightly yet. My take is that this is reflective of their archaic views and not that of Singapore.

By restricting gays in our society, we are actually pushing away alot of talents out into other more accepting countries. Gays for all the good reasons seem to possess alot of talents themselves. They usually are good lawyers, writers, painters or actors.

Yes, the left-handers have been breaking up families. I am glad I’m not the only one who sees the sad truth of family arguments caused at the dinner table due to the left-handers who just refuse to use the chopsticks rightfully with their right hand.

But left-handedness has greater ramifications than just breaking up family. It is a security issue! Our assault rifles are only meant, rightfully, for right-handed operation! These left-handers have forsaken the dominant use of their right hands to use their left hands as their master hand, and thus are a risk when it comes to firearms. How can they be deployed as efficient soldiers? We need to categorize them as 303! If we don’t start classifying this abomination like we do with gays, what’s next? Just last year there was this teacher, some Otter Fang, who blatantly used his left hand in front of his students to write on the whiteboard! What if my children think that using the left hand to write is OKAY? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Yes, I agree that we should have pulled the trigger, with our right hands (the rightfully right way) of course. We need new laws drawn up… 378A should be formulated. If we don’t protect the right-handed silent majority, traditions will erode. Decadent Western influences like left-handed drive will seep into our society. Left-handers will be shaking their left hands, and our children will all try to be left-handers because it is cool.

But hey, it’s all against left-handedness, not against left-handers, so it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if left-handedness is linked to creativity. The right and moral values are more important.

For a very long time, I was frequently annoyed by what some would consider ‘gay militarism’. I always thought, why so worked up? Why insist on gay parades gay events etc etc, and over-react all the time? It’s not like I dunno you can’t help being anything but gay.

But then, looking at some of the comments here, I realize how deep the misconception runs. Some think gayness is a disease. Some think gayness is a choice. (while true for SOME individuals, what proof is there that it is true for every single gay out there?) Some still think gays have a tendency to spread AIDs more than straight people, because gays are promiscuous. (but really, no more than straight people.) Some think that gays provoke quarrels with the right-handed family.. no wonder gays have to shout to be heard!

Some even suggest that there should be an organisation that is against gayness and not gays… Of course by doing so, it makes you sound so tolerable and loving, because, hey you love them as people, but you are against their behavior, so no, you are not bigoted, not at all.

But gays are defined by their very gayness no? What exactly is against gay behavior anyway? That they should be banned from kissing in public? From holding hands? If you see them as equals and human beings as you claim to do, shouldn’t you realize you have no right to dictate for them what you could tolerate for straight people? Look, I don’t mean we should tolerate all forms of public display of affection. Some PDA are downright offensive whethere they are performed by straights or gays, but all I’m asking for, is when you start organizations that are ‘against’ gays (but no, you are not ‘throwing them in jail’) to really consider if it’s just another form of bigotry at work.

The gays I know, that I spoke to, are not out to turn the whole world gay or to destroy families. Now some of you may think that, by their very acts they break up the family… make parents disown them… it was not so long ago that inter-racial relations does the same thing to families who cannot their children choosing a spouse not of their race or religion. Do you blame the couple?

Do you seriously think it is that easy for gay people to turn straight people gay? Why so worried that a gay event might mislead your children into gay lifestyle? Dear parents, do you even know what your squeaky-clean 15 yr old kids are probably doing behind your back anyway? As for the whole talk of gays destroying the idea of what a family is… for god’s sake. Gays have been around for as long as straight people, and in some ancient societies they are more tolerated than they are now… all these years the traditional idea of a Family is still going strong. If the gay influence had been these strong, we’d all been extinct as a race by now.

Teach your children whatever you want, but don’t teach them to hate.

FYI, i don’t generally like gay people. I agree that I would be most uncomfortable seeing two men or women kiss each other. I find some gay people use their identity as a victimized group to get away with all sorts of inconsiderate and rude behavior. There will always be black sheep in every groups of people. And I hope the gay community as a whole can have an honest dialogue among themselves to see if sometimes they are guilty of ‘gay-nizing’ every issue.

But I’m tired of all these nonsense. I hate bigotry, even if sometimes I’m one myself.. and I hate disguised bigotry. Why can’t we just reach across the aisle and talk? Why all these Us vs Them? Why can’t the Church sit down with the Pink community and really chat?

Hi! :)

Comment No.10 is very disappointing.

“So why do you want to spoil the fun of a some straight folk who just want to enjoy some spare time with wifey and the kiddies in a family outing? Is it really so wrong, if all they wish for is to remain conservatively open minded, but not so open that their brains start spilling out?

Come on surely that’s understandable right? Where is the slight? Why even attempt to impose your values on straight folk? That is really beyond me.”

What I don’t like about it, is the deployment of a very deliberate tone. It is jocular and dismissive, in the way one speaks condescendingly to a child.

I dont like it because, I have noticed a general hardening within the brotherhood against the gay position recently.

In darkness time, things were not perfect, but he did consider them a group that was worth cultivating intellectually so there was a sort of detente, but since then. I and many other BP readers have registered a very clear and deliberate attempt not only to marginalize the gay community, but also to limit their influence in shaping the Sg social narrative. This they do in a variety of ways.

If you read this for example it becomes all too clear.

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/the-day-parents-say-no-to-child-abuse/

I wish to register my protest to the brotherhood liason and hope that the webmaster here will remove his offending post. Better still please issue a public apology.

This is a matter of principle. I like reading the BP, but many of us cannot understand why they have reverted to such a hardline recently.

The Straits Times report, as far as I could tell, was no more biased than say their reports on religious terrorists. – Gerald Giam (#12)

Gerald, we agree to disagree on the position of Straits Times. It is no doubt a bias media that seeks to propagate hatred, political correctness deemed acceptable by the PAP, and administer thoughts on citizens. Singapore should learn from its friends such as North Korea and Zimbawe, where propaganda is not only made free of charge, but also citizens get shot for questioning propaganda.

gymrat (#32)

I disagree with you. PAP’s merit must be discredited. Most importantly, the trust between the PAP and the public must be destroyed irreversibly.

Good afternoon,

Hey, I know some of you are angry with me – can I just say one thing? I just want to say, I love you all.

You know why Thio Li-Ann was run over by the blogo train till she looked prata when she broached this subject?

Do you really want to know why? No it’s not because she still lives with mummy and joy and rapture is to be had on the cheap through a battery operated toy; but rather it may be for the very simple reason; she has never ever heard the idea of ‘X’ marks the spot; and where is this place? Well, it isn’t a place as it remains a state of mind; a place where, when you put a stick of cinnamon into hot coffee time just stands still – X marks the spot – and when you just take some time off and listen to smooth jazz, all your problems just melts away like lemon drops – again X marks the spot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS6FnaI6f5E&feature=related

Yes, we will all need a break, it’s inevitable, the time had to come; I promise you all, if you all don’t come down so hard on me; I’ve may even be persuaded to arrange for Darkness to give a live rendition of this piece; check out 3.14 when it pick up’s pace, no does it as good as da man – but if you bum buddies con’t to give me a hard time, have you considered what happens; if you scare off folk like Darkness from blogosphere – who is going to be garuda then? Who will be that mythical bird that takes you all to that happy mysterious place where X marks the spot?

You think about that bfr you write nasty things about me. Remember X marks the spot. Or it just doesnt come around.

SD

Mr Gilbert, you said “Though I am a Christian, I try not to discriminate though pastors often preached on anti-homo message at the pulpit. Some even downright say that gays are sinners!”

Unfortunate to say, your pastor is right, however he did not complete the whole sentence. He should continue to say, you and me, we are all sinners, not only gays.

We are all sinners, right from the time we were born, this is what the bible says. God does not discriminate sinners, as He sees us all the same. To Him, there are no “small” sins or “big” sins, a sin is a sin. So a murderer and a devout christian we are all the same in the eyes of God.

So a true christian does not discriminate gays, or even murderers, rapist, robbers, phedophiles, liers, adulterers, just like Jesus. Christians are taught to love the sinners, but NOT the sin.

Question is, is being a gay a sin? This really depend on ones conviction.

Are gays more promiscuous?

Actually I rather commercial enterprises not get involved with religious groups for whatever reasons.

Race and religion have special significance to everyone of us. Mixing it up with business is not appealing to me.

Especially when we don’t know much about these foreign religious entities. Afterall, one can be the front for more sinister agenda.

This world is complicated enough. Let the banks just be the place I can put my money safely.

If not, then allow all kinds of banks to exist … christian banks, buddhist banks and muslim banks .. and the customers can all happily go bank where they can also get sermons and preachings while they queue.

“Christians are taught to love the sinners, but NOT the sin.”

“Question is, is being a gay a sin?”

Let’s just start by saying that whether being gay is a sin really depends on one’s convictions. And as we all know, convictions are hard to change. The question we have to ask ourselves really is, are what we are doing in the name of ‘pro-family’ and ‘upholding Christian values’ really acts of LOVE for the gay ’sinners’?

When you petition the government not to repeal section 377a, you therefore make every gay person engaging in criminal behavior everytime they have sex…. when you think that it’s the right thing to do to ban gay events because they somehow promote ‘anti-gay lifestyle’, do you think by denying them such rights, which you won’t have denied on any other minority group… do you think that’s Christian love?

Who gives you the right to deny things that you would have protested if they were similarly denied to you, when all people are equal in the eyes of God?

If you feel that gayness is a sin, fine by you. You may even feel that you have a duty to ‘cure’ your gay friends of their disease. Go ahead. It is your right, even though you will probably lose some friends. But don’t talk about Christian love on one hand, and be friendly with the gay people at your workplace and social gatherings, and then petition to deny them of their rights on the other hand. That’s not a very Christiany thing to do.

“Christians are taught to love the sinners, but NOT the sin.”

“Question is, is being a gay a sin?”

Let’s just start by saying that whether being gay is a sin really depends on one’s convictions. And as we all know, convictions are hard to change. The question we have to ask ourselves really is, are what we are doing in the name of ‘pro-family’ and ‘upholding Christian values’ really acts of LOVE for the gay ’sinners’?

When you petition the government not to repeal section 377a, you therefore make every gay person engaging in criminal behavior everytime they have sex…. when you think that it’s the right thing to do to ban gay events because they somehow promote ‘anti-gay lifestyle’, do you think by denying them such rights, which you won’t have denied on any other minority group… do you think that’s Christian love?

Who gives you the right to deny things that you would have protested if they were similarly denied to you, when all people are equal in the eyes of God?

If you feel that gayness is a sin, fine by you. You may even feel that you have a duty to ‘cure’ your gay friends of their disease. Go ahead. It is your right, even though you will probably lose some friends. But don’t talk about Christian love on one hand, and be friendly with the gay people at your workplace and social gatherings, and then petition to deny them of their rights on the other hand. That’s not a very Christiany thing to do.

TOC I dun understand why I am being moderated…

I believe it is our duty to speak out against bigotry when we see them. What I was merely pointing out is, you cannot exercise Christian love and deny minorities their rights at the same time. I believe we all share the same values, even if we can disagree on what constitutes ’sin’.

Zefly,

I too don’t understand why you were put in the moderation queue. You’ve been “released”.. :)

Apologies …

Regards,
Andrew

It’s just an article, I read it with open mind.
But still I cannot grasp the idea of “positive lifestyle and most persuasive gay”..like what Mr Anthony wrote.

I’m not a fan of homosexual behaviour and a big part of the reason is that they tried so hard to be accepted by the majority while they impose a display of being different. They say why can’t you accept us, we’re humans but they go on to organize gay parades, one nation parties, gay clubs. Why don’t they do away all these and promote something more in line with the majority?
What they do after hours is none of our business, but you want to be accepted then start acting like a majority..
We all can live together. It’s just that we always don’t try hard enough..

DBS is not just any private commercial enterprise but one in which the Minister for Finance holds a controlling stake, via Temasek Holdings and Maju Holdings (in turn a subsidiary of Temasek). Oei Hong Leong can donate to whoever he wants, but for government linked companies its a different matter.

jef0901

I used to think like you too. I used to get annoyed with gays for wanting to ‘rub their gayness’ (no pun intended) in our faces.

To be honest, the idea of gay parades and gay clubs offends the straight guy in me. (or I would say, they offend the homophobe in me)

But when you think about it… if any organisations can organize gatherings, Family day and what not, and take part in Chingay processions etc etc, if it’s more ok for women to be skimpily clad than for men to be wearing really short shorts, if old folks can have their old folks corner, and men’s only country clubs are allowed, and yet we frown upon gay clubs… then that’s when you may realize the reason for our own feelings of offense could be due to our discrimination.

There are many things I don’t like. I don’t like Ah Bengs hanging out in my void deck. But unless they cause trouble and start harassing people, there is no reason for me to deny them the right of hanging out in my void deck.

If we don’t like gay clubs, gay events and gay parades.. just don’t go near those places when they have their events.

You can’t expect them to start acting like majority if their very gender orientation is different. You can’t expect them to start kissing members of the opposite sex instead of their own. You can’t expect some to act less effeminately or to dress up to be more in line of how a typical man or woman would wear. That’s tyranny of the majority.

But I would agree with you that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. Some things are offensive, whether or not they are done by straights or gays. And I would be the first to protest if gays want to be so different as if all of society’s norms does not apply to them. But speaking to the few gays I know, most are reasonable people who only want the right to do what is allowed for every one else.

hmm,

I think I shall share my opinions on this issue. (Btw, has any of you read my latest article yet?)

The first stage of any problem is denial; that is when people attempt to deny that they have any problem, claim that they are “normal”. I think that is the stage where the members of the Pink Lobby are at now. 377A and other religious convictions aside, from a purely scientific, biological perspective, we can see how homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered”. I personally support the view that the APA removed the classification of homosexuals due to political pressure rather than scientific research. Without sounding too explicit, the parts simply don’t fit in a homosexual liaison! And unfortunately for the LGBT community, the Karma Sutra – corrupted many times over since the 1800s – does not actually prescribe positions for homosexual sex, and neither does it for anal or group sex. It features a discussion on oral sex – section 377A material – but only alongside intercourse.

Anyway, really you see that homosexuals tend to detect some inconsistencies in their social relations at some age; all mention that they felt “uncomfortable” with something or the other. But they sort of rationalise these out when they “Realize” they are homosexuals. What they really need to do, and others need to help them with, is to stop this denial and confront the problem.

Of course, religious people are confounded by their own dogmas which are not always accurate. So the net result – especially after trying extremely inappropriate treatments (e.g. electroshock treatment in Vegas) – is to worsen their denial and push them into a corner where they start forming into “civil-rights lobbies”. Worse-still, they become the lynch-pins for AIDS, not a particularly empathetic approach to “reaching out”.

There is also the problem of “scientific research”. The research results are always skewed because this has become an over-politicized phenomenon.

And somehow it spills into sociopolitics as well. I am sincerely unsure why a 303 is needed in the first place; or perhaps we should have specific companies for LGBT recruits in BMT. There is no reason to discriminate against them in jobs too; barring a teacher from teaching just because he is gay is one step short of paranioa. (Of course, the PAP is rather successful in nurturing paranoia in Singapore; that is how it manages to cling on to political power.) Otto Fong is a real nice guy, and really he doesn’t make you suspect in any way that he might be gay.

The first stage of any problem is denial. Indeed. That’s probably where Arix is right now; the denial that being gay is not a problem by claiming that gays are abnormal.

“From a purely scientific, biological perspective, we can see how homosexuality is ‘intrinsically disordered’” but then Arix went on to debunk his/her point that the “problem of ’scientific research’ is that the research results are always skewed because this has become an over-politicized phenomenon.” I might add that it’s not just the over-politicized phenomenon, but also the patriarchal heteronormative ideology that is skewing the research.

So which group is the one exercising political pressure? Both are to me.

At then end of the day, it’s still about everyone living their own lives and not having others to pressurize them into what’s normal and what’s abnormal. And I thought God is the only one who is allowed to judge. Why is everyone judging everyone else now?

Arix,

your article a bit hard to understand ah…

But I think you may be touching on an interesting point here. Whether homosexuality is ‘intrinsically disordered’. I feel that on both sides of the argument, there is inconclusive evidence to prove either one is true.

The question is what do we do when the ‘trial’ is still on? Have we already passed the sentence? Or until ‘proven guilty’ eg – homosexuality is a psychological disorder that can be cured, we give them the equal treatment as we would accord an innocent person?

And quite frankly, so what if it’s a psychological disorder? Do we have the right to dictate for them that they should be cured? Rather than denying rights, and targeting their actions as dangerous to our social fabric, as if condemnation and segregation will produce anything other than more resistance, why not just accept them first? They will, through the actions of genuine love by others, see God’s grace and turn straight without anyone having to preach to them at all. ( i mean, if you believe that gayness is a sin)

Anyway, from a spiritual perspective, I feel that the reason why there are gays on Earth is because God is giving us a chance to love people different from us. So far we don’t seem to be doing a very good job.

Weiye,

perhaps I shouldn’t have written the word “scientific”; because it seems to have confused you. The two instances of “Scientific” are used in different contexts. First is referring to science, the other is referring to scientists. That is why the second “scientific” is placed in inverted commas, to show that the research is not really scientific because it lacks the most crucial criterion – objectivity.

It is true that “patriarchal heteronomical” influences skew research to one side, but the main problem is that research is skewed by “anarchic homonomical” – where “anarchic” is used in the technical sense, rather than the emotive sense – influences as well. So we have a tug-of-war being played, which hardly helps to resolve anything.

And as always, it is the moderates – like me – who are caught in the middle. Way bad. The point is, comrade, it’s not always about pressure; it is about internal and external balance. Even if we arrested your “patriarchal” people for sedition and slashed Section 377A, are you sure that all LG(B)T people can really live totally-comfortable lives, and especially can their families live with it, be in total harmony, and not just “tolerate” it?

Zef,

1) Right there is inconclusive evidence to prove right or wrong. The anti-side tends to use probabilities as low as 50% to prove their case. What about the other 50%. ANd even if you got 60% – this is not General Elections man; Scientists should aim for at least 95% accuracy to prove a theory, and in fact even more. The pro-side forgets one of the most important facts about genetics: genes are only the blueprint; some genes actually vary their effect depending on environmental conditions. Plus, there are such things as genetic diseases, not that I am saying that homosexuality is one.

2) Well, how do we treat SARs or AIDs patients? Since they can’t get cured, still provide them proper palliative care. Remember this is the reason why euthanasia is so controversial?

3) Tell that to MOH who just clamped down on the Freedom of Movement of TB patients! But the fact is, if you know you have a medical disorder, you will want to be cured. Honestly, you would look at someone strange if he wanted to keep having a high fever. So dictating that they should be cured is not part of the question. The issue is dictating HOW they should be cured. because the theories put forth by the anti-lobby are really inaccurate if you want to study a proper sample of the LGBT population, their methods of treatment are quite ineffective. Counselling helps *EMOTIONAL* problems, not *PSYCHOLOGICAL* problems; that’s why you have psychologists and psychiatrists. And using electroshock as “reparative therapy” sounds like a scene from “One Flew A Cuckoo’s Nest”. And I always doubt hypnosis and NLP. So really we haven’t found the proper way to treat homosexuality yet.

4) I agree with you totally. Homosexuality is not just a test for the homosexuals like many churches put it, but is also a test for the Church. And I think it’s a test we are scoring very low in currently.

To add on, I think what we need is a conceptual re-examination of what sin is, really. The old legalistic definition seems to be harming more than benefitting mankind.

The first stage of any problem is denial – that is when people attempt to deny that they have any problem, and claim that they are “normal”. I think that is the stage where the left-handers are at now. Laws and religious convictions aside, from a purely scientifici, biological perspective, we can see how left-handedness is “intrinsically disordered”. I personally support the view that society no longer views left-handedness as a disorder due to political pressure rather than scientific research. Without sounding too crass, the left hand is meant for dirty jobs! And unfortunately for the left-handed community, the common mechanism of handwriting is of a left to right direction, with clearly is not suited for left-handers.

Anyway, really you see that left-handers tend to detect some inconsistencies in which hand to use at some age; all mention that they feel “uncomfortable” with something or the other. But when they sort of rationalise these out when they “realize” they are left-handers. What they really need to do, and others need to help them with, is to stop this denial and confront the problem

Of course, religious people are confounded by their own dogmas which are not always accurate. So the net result – especially after trying extremely inappropriate treatments (e.g. beating their left hands when they use it dominantly) – is to worsen their denial and push them into a corner where they start forming into “lefties communities”. Worse still, they die and cause danger to others while attempting to use right-handed equipment and firearms – not a particularly empathetic approach to “reaching out”.

There is also the problem of “scientific research”. The research results are always skewed because this has become an over-politicized phenomenon.

And somehow it spills into sociopolitics as well. I am sincerely unsure why soldiers must state their dominant hand. Perhaps we should have specific companies for left-handed recruits in BMT. There is no reason to discriminate them in jobs too. Otter Fang is a really nice guy, despite the fact that he is a left-hander. As long as he isn’t using his left-hand dominantly in front of impressionable young children, you wouldn’t suspect in any way that he might be a left-hander.

Hi Arix,

Your post baffles me. Why do you think that the pro-gays community has more power and influence than the anti-gays community? Isn’t gays the minority?

And I always thought that the Christianity, which is arguably one of the largest influence in west-centric psychological research, with its staunch anti-gays preaching, has far more reaching effects in the politics of science. But somehow, the pro-gays minority managed to outdo the church folks in your argument.

It is about internal and external balance. But why is your ‘balance’ built upon the sufferings of a selected group of people i.e. the gays? Even if we may never be able to live in perfect harmony (although I do believe it is possible), is it right to wage a war for peace? I thought the Iraq debacle has thought us something. Apparently not I guess.

At one point, my argument may seem to be slapping the pro-gays community ’cause we started the campaign against DBS support for FOTF, but I argue that it is not because I believe it goes deeper into the issue that DBS is using money from us to support a cause we are against. It makes the boycott on the use of DBS card reasonable no?

And why are you arresting the patriarchal people? I’ve never argued for that although I believe in gender equality; I also believes in freedom of expression and the universality of human rights. Unfortunately, these rights are only awarded to selected groups by moderates like you.

Seth..

Lol! That’s brilliant. I’m beginning to see what you are driving at. Keep it up! :)

Seth,

pre) I should take offence since I am a Southpaw as well.

1) Your analogy is wanting. Unlike Homosexuality, there actually has been a gene identified for southpaw: LRRTM1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRRTM1

but even so, it only increases the likelihood of left-handedness, not conclusively determine it.

2) Really, they do? I don’t remember passing that stage. And anyway, the discrimination is mostly commercial, and there are special tools made for left-handers nowadays.

3) You need to provide proof that religious people actually do that – or else your analogy holds no water.

4) ????

5) Really, I didn’t see if soldiers had to state their dominant form in the NS aptitude test. And Mr Fong is a right-hander; I know him personally.

aft) It’s a good linguistic strategy to use, Seth, but you really need to check your facts.

Arix,

pre) You’re just in denia that you have a probleml, like you said homosexuals are.

1) Your point is? There’s some evidence, but not 100%? Pray tell, is it at least 95%? Come on this is not General elections. Even then, there’re such things as genetic diseases right? Not saying left-handedness is, if you ignore all the crazy talk about split personality in the link you provided.

2) Really, homosexuals do? I don’t recall passing that stage. Anyway discrimination against LGBT is all bigoted. There are much more progressive societies nowadays.

3) You really need to check up more on social stigmas of left-handedness. Might want to ask some grandparents for a start.

4) ??? Yeah that’s what I thought when I saw the statement that you made which I think copied and pasted.

5) Soldiers Are usually associated with the military no? And military involves firearms and grenades, no? And pleas, I was referring to a particular left handed Mr. Otter Fang.

aft) Maybe you need to check yours.

Anyway, back on the pertinent agenda. It is suggested that left-handedness is genetically linked. This cannot do. We must take steps to ban left marriages. This is worse than gay marriages, since gays don’t usually procreate an there is not much evidence yet that suggests that they will pass on any gay gene, but oh those vile left-handers will pass on the left-handed genes!

We must ban left marriages at once! Of course, nothing against Arix and left-ganders. They’re very normal and nice people when they use their right hands dominantly.

Why is my comment moderated? =\

Hello again Mr Zefly,

“But when you think about it… if any organisations can organize gatherings, Family day and what not, and take part in Chingay processions etc etc, if it’s more ok for women to be skimpily clad than for men to be wearing really short shorts, if old folks can have their old folks corner, and men’s only country clubs are allowed, and yet we frown upon gay clubs.”

We all grow old and become senior citizens, we will still be man and woman who dress up to look good, sexy, whatever. But we certainly don’t turn gay as a phase in life…

I have to admit I’m perturbed by the request to repeal 377A.This is perhaps because of the idea that homosexual behaviour is initially prohibited (under law) and it goes against the rule of nature. If you ask me what the rule of nature, I gues I can safely say that whenever there’s a male, theres’s a female for every mammal in the act of reproduction. For those who believe in monotheistic religion, we have Adam and Eve and the creation of mankind. We cannot deny something ordained to be classed as something scientific or even questionable. My stand is that homosexual behaviour is definitely not accepted by the religion (monotheistic)itself. And being non-discriminatory would mean that we are going against God, right? But it is a tough question to pursue because we have to contend with the secular laws and order of things.

The way I see it. I have no problems with gays that much. Just don’t shout it out to my face and demand me to acknowledge your sexual orientation and praise you for being so deviant and proud of it. Just pipe down. Don’t worry..we can hear you.

Seth,

fore) Honestly, your tack is getting a little old. Your linguistic stunt has a logic up to a point, but now you are just parotting a broken record.

pre) Fine, tell me what my problem is then. And IMHO, homosexuals do admit that they have some problem fitting into society at first.

1) The point is, there has been no gene AT all identified for affecting gender identity, while there LRRTM1 for handedness. If you just want to parrot the contra-version, I can’t help you.

2) Are you a homosexual in the first place? (And please provide a proper answer this time.)

3) Oh? Provide me the links and I will do the necessary reading. And Sorry, but both my southpaw grandparents are dead already. How about you do some voodoo to summon them from the dead?

4) Well, in the case of handedness, LRRTM1 has been discovered, and nobody can refute that. That gene is the objective proof, and cannot be modified by any bias. Whereas, research attempting to prove or disprove the existence of homosexuality as a genetic trait depends purely on statistical probabilities of a sample population., and that is a much less reliable method scientifically.

5) I don’t see your contention on soldiers; Why don’t you just check some GOM or sth. And email me Otter Fang’s picture to prove that he is a real person and not just a euphemism of Otter Fong.

aft) Really, this convo is beginning to tire me out. Can you just answer directly??

aft2) “vile” is putting words into my mouth. I have not said at all that homosexuals are “vile”. Just shows that Pink Lobby Supporters like you do not bother to comprehend alternative perspectives!

fore) Am I parroting a broken record, or are you failing to see clearly because you have double standards when it comes to left-handers and homosexuals?

pre) So it is homosexuals’ fault that they can’t fit into society? Is that homophobia’s fault or is that the fault of homosexuals? Hint: is racism at fault, or minorities at fault?

1) Let me quote you on this “Scientists should aim for at least 95% accuracy to prove a theory, and in fact even more. The pro-side forgets one of the most important facts about genetics: genes are only the blueprint; some genes actually vary their effect depending on environmental conditions.”

So how conclusive are your whole left-handedness is genetic thing? Even then if it is so, I quote “Plus, there are such things as genetic diseases”. Schizophrenia, anybody? Tell me now, should we “provide [left-handers] proper palliative care” like “we treat SARs or AIDs patients?”?

2) Yes.

3) Well, that’s rich, coming from someone who asked me to check my facts.

Well then:
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=forced+right+hand
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/2506/topics/331087
http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/politics/did_you_know_th.shtm
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/473032
https://community.tasteofhome.com/forums/p/33500/707214.aspx

And I said “some” grandparents, not “your” grandparents. Grandparents in this case because left-handedness was treated like how homosexuality is treated nowadays. Hopefully, in a few generations or less, people will be laughing (or possibly shaking their heads) at how this generation did things.

4) But you forget: “even if you got 60% – this is not General Elections man; Scientists should aim for at least 95% accuracy to prove a theory, and in fact even more.”

And of course, so what if it’s genetic? “Plus, there are such things as genetic diseases”.

So what if it’s not genetic? Is there a heterosexual gene? Is there a religion gene? Shall we say that religion is unnatural and unacceptable?

5) Otter Fang was satire.

People argue that gay soldiers are less efficient soldiers, or even not fitting to be soldiers. Left-handed soldiers are impaired as well when it comes to military equipment. Left-handedness and homosexuality have more in common than you would like to admit.

aft) How does it feel being on the receiving end of discrimination for once, leftie?

aft2) The same to you. You refuse to see the alternative perspective that right-handedness is the normal trait in humans. Why the double standards? Just because your “condition” is now not as despised as it was in the past, does not give you the right to put down homosexuals. Don’t say what “moderate” or not. You have clearly already classified homosexuality as a condition to be treated, as an abnormality that is against human nature. Like Zefly suggested, bigotry is bad. Disguised bigotry is worse.

“We all grow old and become senior citizens, we will still be man and woman who dress up to look good, sexy, whatever. But we certainly don’t turn gay as a phase in life…”

We don’t grow up to become left-handers, nor do we grow up to become Chinese, nor do we grow up to become straight if we were not all that when we were born.

“I have to admit I’m perturbed by the request to repeal 377A.This is perhaps because of the idea that homosexual behaviour is initially prohibited (under law) and it goes against the rule of nature. If you ask me what the rule of nature, I gues I can safely say that whenever there’s a male, theres’s a female for every mammal in the act of reproduction.”

So it’s the law of nature to be gay in certain provinces of China where men outnumber women?

In any case, let’s just ban anything that’s against nature, or at least what we think is. Let’s start with spectacles and antibiotics.

“For those who believe in monotheistic religion, we have Adam and Eve and the creation of mankind. We cannot deny something ordained to be classed as something scientific or even questionable. My stand is that homosexual behaviour is definitely not accepted by the religion (monotheistic)itself. And being non-discriminatory would mean that we are going against God, right? But it is a tough question to pursue because we have to contend with the secular laws and order of things.”

Let’s make illegal adultery, left-handedness, shrimp and pork okay? ^_^ Things are so much more simpler when we set laws in accordance with religion.

“The way I see it. I have no problems with gays that much. Just don’t shout it out to my face and demand me to acknowledge your sexual orientation and praise you for being so deviant and proud of it. Just pipe down. Don’t worry..we can hear you.”

I have no problems with left-handers too. Don’t write notes to me with your left-hand, and don’t borrow rifle deflectors from me, and don’t expect me to understand why you can’t use normal, everyday scissors properly.

Dear Mr Seth,

“We don’t grow up to become left-handers, nor do we grow up to become Chinese, nor do we grow up to become straight if we were not all that when we were born.”

Yes, it is true. I concede to that.

“So it’s the law of nature to be gay in certain provinces of China where men outnumber women?”

I did mention the act of reproduction, right. If you can make two males produce a baby, please publish.

“In any case, let’s just ban anything that’s against nature, or at least what we think is. Let’s start with spectacles and antibiotics.”

Spectacles help you see, antibiotics cures you. Being gay (and I don’t mean happy) ? Hmm..I’m still wondering..

“Let’s make illegal adultery, left-handedness, shrimp and pork okay? ^_^ Things are so much more simpler when we set laws in accordance with religion.”

Yes it would make things easier, but you conveniently omitted the last sentence I wrote. We are not living in biblical times, so we set rules to govern and prevent our own demise. We should also set laws and rules that should not typecast or even oppress a minority..hmm, I agree.

I gues alot have to do with the attitudes of the majority. I still have a long way to go to really understand them, though.

Seth (#55),

fore) In case you don’t realize, you are talking to one of the few people who has a reputation for cool-headedness and objectivity on the internet. So no, I do not have double-standards at all. I am willing to produce evidence to substantiate my point. So yes, I still stand by my argument that you are parrotting a broken record.

pre) Well, in Racism vs minorities, the Racists obviously hold majority of the blame, but the minorities will hold the blame too if they conduct actions that “prove” the “validity” of the Racists’ claims. For Instance, the Tamil Tigers come from a minority group; does it mean we should blame the Racists in Sri Lanka entirely for all the horrors the Tigers commit? No, because the Tigers didn’t have to commit all those horrors in the first place; they could have adopted a more stoic diplomatic stance toward the majority. And for the Tamils who support the Tigers, they are supporting Racism against their group.

Similarly, in the case of homosexuals and homophobes, homophobes do need to approach the issue properly and objectively, and stop falling back on their old, outdated and irrelevant theories. And in the case of religious conservatives, they need to revise their definition of Sin to comprise more of Separation than Crime. Because homosexuality is a societal condition, not an individual affliction, so Acts like 377A are not going to help resolve it.

On the other hand, homosexuals need to be willing to engage in genuine dialogue. Yes, the homophobes are extremely adept at pushing homosexuals into the corner, but homosexuals must find the holes in the containment and worm out through them. Fighting homophobes with Gay Pride Parties simply reinforce the notion of homosexuals as a threat to the social order, which riles your opponents even more. What is there to be so proud about being Gay? Yes, Everybody knows Alfiaan Saat and Ctril Wong, but there are just as many distinguished poets and novelists who are not gay (think of Minfong Ho). Being good in literature and poetry doesn’t emanate from Gayness.

The way to solve a problem is by finding its underlying cause. Homosexuals need to confront the underlying cause of homosexuality, whilst Homophobes need to confront the underlying cause of their homophobia.

Homophobes are not called “homophobes” simply because they despise homosexuals, but because they are afraid of anything that remotely resembles homosexual behaviour e.g. men wearing earrings. Homophobes have fixated gender-roles in their cosmology, that is the framework of ideas they use to relate to the world. So a homophobe will wince at the idea of a girl dressed in jeans and the idea of a man doing ballet, just as much as s/he will wince against a Lesbian or a Gay. It is no wonder that the population of homophobes are made up of social and religious conservatives, the same kind of people who will argue for women to stay home as housewives.

For Homosexuals, the problem is confused gender-roles. They are pitted between the society controlled by the homophobes and the society of the MNCs, which promotes individualism. When a baby is born – and this is scientifically proven – there are 11 different temperaments it may possess. These temperaments do not just control how likely the Baby is going to become angry, but also a myriad of other behaviours and attitudes. My hypothesis is that the temperament decides whether one is more inclined toward the homophobes or the MNCs in terms of gender roles. One who is inclined more toward the MNCs has a greater propensity to develop into a homosexual, regardless of parental influence (i.e. the absence of either-sex parent theory). But because the society is still controlled by the homophobes due to the nature of Capitalist development (too long to explain here), these people who strongly incline toward the MNCs are pulled forcefully by homophobic forces in the other direction. This creates a “tearing of conscience” that ALL homosexuals recognize as their moment of “realization” that they are homosexual.

But the mainly conservative society and Political Establishment cannot empathise properly because they are stuck in the succumb-or-resist-temptation paradigm, which fits a totally different problem.

1 & 4) Your left-handedness argument is going way over-the-hill. But I shall attempt to answer you anyway, just to humour you:

How can I be certain that lefthandedness is a genetic condition? Because the gene has been identified. How do I know that environmental factors do not affect the development of handedness? Because handedness can be identified at a very young age; My parents could tell I was left-handed since I was 3. 3 is too young an age to absorb environmental factors. And anyway, given that the environment of a left-hander is right-handed, there is no compelling environmental factor that mandates the left-hander to become left-handed.

If there is a gene for homosexuality, it is likely to be a gene for sexuality in general, accounting for EITHER homosexuality OR heterosexuality. As for genetic diseases, whilst there is very clear disjunct between homosexuals’ sexuality (psychological) and their biology, there is no such disjunct with regards to southpaws.

Besides, the homosexuality gene debate has one problem: Even if a homosexuality gene is found, how is it going to account for bisexuality? So far, we talked about homosexuals and heterosexuals, but the bisexuals are left out in the cold.

The social construct of religion is unnatural and perhaps sometimes unacceptable, but the Spirituality which it encases is neither.

2) No wonder you are so defensive. But can we please try and conduct a civilised discussion?

3) You need to look for better evidence. Anecdotes and Unreferenced articles are not reliable enough.

5) So I figured.

Anyway, the Military is an institution with its own biases, and using it as a symbol of social attitudes is a little outdated.

aft) I don’t see discrimination, just irritaiton.

aft2) What? I am not into the “normal” and “abnormal” classifications unless there is scientific or logical grounds for it. I use “disordered” because it is a much less subjective word than “abnormal”, and I take extra pains to empahsise that I am only using it in a semantic fashion, and without ANY OTHER attached connotations, which I personally do not support anyway. I use “disordered” in the sense of “having parts that do not cooperate or accept each other well” rather than the sense of “violating a predetermined natural order”. So homosexuality is “disordered” because homosexual behaviour goes against the Human (biological) Reproductive System, which is geared specifically toward heterosexual intercourse. Left-handedness, on the other hand, does not have any “disorder” wrt to Human biology.

I am very strict with myself; I use only factual evidence, not social opinion. And I use words in their logical meaning, without their usual social connotations, if any.

So I seriously take offence to being called a bigot. Perhaps it is you who are the real bigot after all. *Sigh*

“I did mention the act of reproduction, right. If you can make two males produce a baby, please publish.”

“Spectacles help you see, antibiotics cures you. Being gay (and I don’t mean happy) ? Hmm..I’m still wondering..”

Okay, my bad. Let’s ban marriage/sex between the blind, the crippled and the infertile.

“Yes it would make things easier, but you conveniently omitted the last sentence I wrote. We are not living in biblical times, so we set rules to govern and prevent our own demise. We should also set laws and rules that should not typecast or even oppress a minority..hmm, I agree.”

So do you think that 377A is necessary?

fore) Wow a human that is totally objective.

Your double standards are so ingrained that you don’t even see it, I’m afraid.

pre) So now homosexuals are committing arson and murder?

Racists and homophobes are bigots. They hate and discriminate just because they are bigoted. A homophobe will hate a homosexual as long as the guy is homosexual, it does not matter if he partakes in gay pride parades or not. We do not have gay pride parades in Singapore, and there are still people who hate homosexuals to the core.

Besides, it is our individual freedom to partake in activities within legal limits. So what if some homosexuals like to go to gay clubs or cross-dressing parties? If there’s a group of people who are racist against a minority group, are the minority group at fault for participating in one of their activities?

Bigots are bullies. The more one holes up in a corner, the more a bully will attempt to drive the weaker minority into the corner.

1&4) You see it as so because of your double standards. Left-handedness and sexuality have more in common than you would like to admit.

The gene that increases the odds of left-handedness has been found. Has a gene that conclusively causes left-handed been found? No. Does it make left-handedness any less unacceptable? No. Likewise, there may or may not be genetic reasons for homosexuality, but we don’t need Science to treat people fairly.

You need to look for better evidence. Anecdotes and Unreferenced articles are not reliable enough. But to humour your story about you when you were 3-years-old, let it be known that I liked guys since a tender age, and many of my gay friends can relate to that personally. In any case, not all identical twins are of the same handedness, suggesting that it is partly environmentally caused.

What disjunct are you talking about?

Besides, the left-handed gene debate has one problem: Even if a left-handed gene is found, how is it going to account for ambidexterity?

2) You are left-handed too, and are also defensive when someone says that left-handedness is an abnormality.

3) The truth of the matter is that left-handers were once shunned the way homosexuals are now, perhaps not as bad. It is ironic that you, a minority yourself, seek to condemn homosexuals just because we are the whipping boy for this generation of bigots.

5) My talk about left-handers being inefficient soldiers was just part of my satire.

It is true that there is little to none social stigma about being left-handed nowadays. But if there were, is it the fault of left-handers then?

aft) Of course it is easy to shrug it off since you’re not the group being discriminated against.

aft2) So if someone chooses not to have children, is he disordered? Shall we attempt to treat him/her through psychological counselling?

A disorder is something that does not conform to the normal order of things. Why are 90% of humans right-handers? There is a gene linked to left-handers, but that could be a genetic disorder. Otherwise, why do left-handers make up only 10% of the population? We do not fully understand this

Left-handedness may or may not be a disorder. Homosexuality may or may not be a disorder. So what? We treat every person as he is. We develop left-handed tools and treat left-handers as equals. It’s high time society treats homosexuals as equals.

You are called a bigot because I call a spade a spade. You are what Zefly would refer to as a disguised bigot. You attempt to act unbiased, but it is very obvious you have already deemed homosexuality as an abnormality to be treated, and homosexuals are patients that should await treatment instead of equity. I may have said a lot about left-handers, but those were to prove a point. I don’t see left-handers as inferior, if my sarcasm wasn’t apparent enough.

Hi jefj0901,

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a bleeding hearts liberal. Just the other day I commented strongly on Yawning bread’s blog for what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, an attempt to make people accept promiscuity and drug use as a lifestyle. I believe that though victimized, gay people as a community need to take responsiblity for the stereotype they portray. I suggested that rather than screaming about victimization all the time, why not particular in doing something good? Like Gays Against Drugs, or Gays For Monogamy. That sort of thing. (but it is also true that being straight, I can never fully understand the sense of persecution gays face)

Notice I am not arguing along the line of whether gayness is natural or a pychological disorder etc etc. Or if it’s a sin. I am but a simple person with limited wisdom so I can’t say with any authority whatsoever.

My question, and challenge I pose is – working under the premise that it is sinful and unnatural, is marginalizing gays the right and smart thing to do? We are talking about the christian tenet of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ here. Suppose the role is swapped. Suppose YOU are gay. Now being gay, how will you react to what you had written thus far?

From a sociological viewpoint, those that had been marginalized often fall in self-defeating and ‘deviant’ habits. Why do you think that there is a higher percentage of drug-users among certain minority races? Do you think that is by accident? Have you been a minority before?

We are talking about humanitarianism here. That is a very pro-religion, not anti-religion thought. If we could REDUCE the incidence of drug abuse and promiscuity among gay people, and REDUCE the chances of them being infected with HIV by the simple act of repealing a law… however you feel about how unnatural homosexual intercourse is, isn’t that our moral obligation to do?

Now I’m sure the charitable person in you would agree.

Yes, it is true that gay people don’t inspire the same feelings in us that poor people, or handicapped people, or old people do. Look past the militarism. Look past the ‘decadence’. Look past the ‘unnaturalness’. And you’ll see that many of them are hungry souls wanting acceptance. I dunno if God will ‘turn them from their wicked ways’, but it is between Him and them. But I know God wants us to bring Him to them. So we do what we can.

Hello Zefly, up until now I have agreed with your comments, but I must say that I disagree that homosexuals are responsible for the stereotype of being drug abusers and promiscuous that is unfairly affixed onto homosexuals.

People will look at the gay clubs and deem homosexuals as a group of people who engage in recreational drug use and sex with multiple partners, but do note that not all gay people club, not all clubbers do drugs and casual sex, and such activities are not restricted to homosexual people. Straight people do drugs, straight people do casual sex.

Some would argue that there is an disproportionately high amount of HIV cases reported within the homosexual community, and thus homosexuals propagates HIV and is thus bad and must be frowned upon, through social discrimination (homophobia) or laws (377A). Have anyone actually realized that the problem lies with men? There is far more HIV infections in men than women, gay or straight. In fact, lesbian sex, another form of homosexual intercourse, is arguable lower risk than heterosexual penetrative intercourse. Furthermore, the statistics are only limited to discovered cases, of course. I would think that homosexuals are more likely to go for testing due to the misconception that it is a gay disease. Homosexuals have regular events pertaining to HIV and AIDS, and are often the target group for awareness campaign. It does make me think that self-selection could lead to such statistical results.

Moreover, has anyone questioned MOH’s methodology of collecting such results? How does MOH determine what percentages of HIV cases are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual? It seems that they have this amazing gaydar device that I would like to grab a hold of.

Are heterosexuals infallible to the disease? No. Shall we then ban sex between heterosexuals? Homophobes can blame homosexuals all they want. It is not going to change the fact that HIV is a problem to everyone, gay or straight.

In any case, I do think that gays are at higher risk of HIV infections. Like I said, the problem seem to lie mainly with men, according to statistics anyway, and it’s all male in the gay community. But what is the correct approach to tackle this problem? We can try to educate and raise awareness, which some organizations have done, but there is so little they can do without a concerted effort by the government. Unfortunately, the government has decided that 377A should stay and gay sex is made illegal, much less try to educate.

Also, I don’t think the homosexuals are dying for acceptance. We couldn’t care less what some bigots might think, which is a trained ability when you have people saying all kinds of unkind words into your face, but we do care when they try to interfere with our lives.

Hi Seth,

I do acknowledge that I am speaking from a limited understanding. I guess you can agree that a straight person would always get some perception wrong, in spite of the good intentions. My response was culled from reading Yawning Bread’s blog where it seemed that there is some acknowledgment of higher promiscuity or drug use. I don’t have statistics to prove anything… and to be honest, statistics can always be interpreted based on agenda.

Ok, maybe ‘gays being responsible for the stereotype they portray’ is stretching it a bit. Assuming that there is among straight people, the SAME proportion of drug use and promiscuity… why do gays get the unfair bias? Or more importantly, what are you doing about it? I know that simply showing statistics and arguing about it somehow will not convince anyone who’s mind is set. The data, and the argument had existed for as long as I was aware there was such a thing called the gay rights movement. Which is why I suggest you need strong affirmative action.

“Also, I don’t think the homosexuals are dying for acceptance. ”

Lol. I was going for that Gettysburg address moment, where you get stirring violins and drumrolls when I give that speech…

But on a serious note. I am, as you will already know by now, quite a bigot myself, with a lot of misconceptions and a deep-seated dislike for effeminate behavior. My first instinct, should I step into a gay pub, is to make sure my butt doesn’t get pinched. It’s irrational, I know, but you can’t erase these kinds of conditioning overnight.

If you had been following my line of argument, you will know that there is no point convincing bigoted people that you are ‘normal’. The thing about most bigoted people is that they know it’s wrong to be bigoted, and so will not admit to their bigotry, but find ways and means to justify bigotry. It astonishes me that people are “perturbed by the request to repeal 377A.” The assurance that there will be no enforcement of the law now doesn’t mean that it won’t happen in the future. And then what defense do you have? The verbal assurance of the PM? If the world operates on verbal assurance, why do people make contracts?

I can understand why people would fight to repeal 377a. I don’t understand those who want to keep it. I don’t see how even if you think being gay is a sin, makes it CRIMINAL. I don’t see how you can say something as thoughtless as, “but it’s not going to be enforced what, so what’s the big deal?” because I know, if there is a law that says that it is Criminal to be a Chinese for eg, even though it will not be enforced, you will see a lot of Chinese marching on the streets in protest.

I don’t even see why even if you dislike gays, that you would want your dislike to be institutionalized.

My line of argument is this… so, your religion says its a sin, (and for some strange reasons, all these people are generally devout)… is your response to a sinner the correct one nonetheless? So far, the argument that goes for not lifting 377a from them is this – by decriminalizing the behavior, you are saying you are approving the behavior. Which is such a stretch of logic really. I disapprove of smoking, but you don’t see me calling for it to be made illegal!

I don’t see why many of these self-professed God-lovers can’t see what they are doing is very unloving. We are called on to be loving everyday, and yet we harp on a few passages in the Scriptures to say God is against gays, while ignoring entire chapters in the Gospels on being loving, and non-judgemental.

I’m sorry, I’m ranting lol. But I hope that one day you guys will get the same rights that straights do.